The Order of Business is No. 1, motion re appointment of commissioners, to be taken without debate at the conclusion of the Order of Business; No. 2, motion re commercial fishing licences, back from committee, to be taken without debate at the conclusion of No. 1; No. 3, Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2009 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage, to be taken at the conclusion of No. 2, on which spokespersons may speak for 12 minutes and all other Senators for ten minutes and Senators may share time, by agreement of the House.
Order of Business.
If the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government is so committed to helping those in difficulty with their mortgages, why did it refuse the Fine Gael amendment to the NAMA legislation to provide for a home owners' support scheme to protect them? Government Members voted against it in this House and in the Dáil. It is somewhat similar to their position on the banking inquiry. Over the weekend Senator Boyle was quoted as saying he wanted a public inquiry on the financial situation in which the country found itself but Green Party Ministers voted in favour of a private inquiry when they were around the Cabinet table. There seems to be one word in public and in the media and something quite different at Cabinet, and this increases the cynicism among the public about politics. When will proposals be brought to this House and to the Dáil to protect and help home owners? Many people are struggling hugely with their bills, especially their mortgages, at present.
Hear, hear.
On another issue, namely, the story reported in The Irish Times today by Carl O’Brien, I propose an amendment to the Order of Business, that the Minister of State, Deputy Moloney, come to the House because the 8,000 adults with intellectual disabilities have waited long enough for proper standards and independent inspection.
Hear, hear.
It is outrageous that we are still in a situation where there have been 500 complaints, many of them about abuse in residential institutions over the past two and a half years, and we still do not have independent inspection of these facilities or any mandatory scheme in place to look at the standards to ensure adults and children in these settings are cared for properly.
Apart from the fact that the State is investing €1.5 billion in these services, as it should, surely we should be concerned about standards in these residential settings. This House debated the Murphy and Ryan reports. How can we stand over asking these adults and young children to wait any longer before proper standards are set in place? I ask that the Minister of State, Deputy Moloney, would come to the House to outline what plans he has to address this situation and what budget there is to deal with it, and ask him whether he can find the money to do something sooner rather than later. These adults and children have waited long enough and surely we should have learnt the lessons from the Murphy and Ryan reports.
The points raised by Senator Fitzgerald are crucial. Whereas I do not completely agree with her point about the amendment to the NAMA legislation, it did provide, as I stated at the time, the opportunity for the Government to put something in at that point. I do not think the Fine Gael amendment did precisely that, but it did open the door for it to be done and that party did ask for mandatory decisions to be taken by Government at that time and the Government refused that.
More importantly and, I suppose, more potently, I have listened to Senator Marc MacSharry for the past year put forward solid proposals on this issue, supported by others on this side of the House, on which it appears he has failed to convince his own party but he has managed to convince the Green Party which seems to have taken every one of his proposals and put them in front of Government. There are serious questions to be asked on this.
These issues, as Senator Fitzgerald stated, have been put forward in various guises in this House. I myself raised them in support of the points raised by Senator MacSharry. There are simple things that can be done. I spent the weekend looking at what they do in other European countries and there are a variety of things being done. In France, for instance, there is a form of mortgage one can get where there is an upper limit of repayments and no matter what happens to interests rates, one's repayments cannot increase by more than the cost of living and must be controlled and related to it. There is a Government department in each part of the country to deal with precisely this and to take over from people who find themselves in difficulty. This is not new and the ideas were put forward by Senator MacSharry, among others. Senator McFadden raised it on a number of occasions here.
We are talking about what the Seanad does. Here are ideas that were put forward. Every group in this House has put forward ideas on this and it seems daft that the Government does not listen until it comes under leverage from the junior party in Government. Fair play to the Green Party if it makes it happen but it seems extraordinary.
On the second issue raised by Senator Fitzgerald, on 27 May last I raised the question of residential homes and institutions for those with intellectual challenges being exempt from mandatory standards and independent inspections. The issue raised in today's front-page story in The Irish Times was anticipated and raised by many groups. I certainly raised it as did others in the House. This is shameful. We could have seen this would happen. We saw all that happened in the homes for the elderly and we saw all the problems that came from that. We have had all the reports and when the reports came out we said that more needs to be done but it has not been done. Here we are, raising the issues. I raised it and other people raised it. The previous issue, the protection of mortgages, has also been raised. Is the Government listening? To whom is it talking? Whose work is it doing at this stage? The solutions are there and they are coming at it from all sides. This is about making decisions.
For the sake of the people facing searing debt I hope the proposals the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources mentioned over the weekend come to fruition. However, the Cathaoirleach will excuse me for expressing a certain amount of scepticism about that particular statement because it bears closer scrutiny. It refers to the setting up of an expert group, presumably to come together and bring forward recommendations. The Minister used the term "rolling recommendations", whatever they are, in respect of what would be done to address this problem. First, it is an expert group set up to make recommendations. From what one can see, it not a group set up to do anything, although perhaps I can be corrected on that if I am wrong. Second, the expert group is not to be set up imminently. It will be set up within weeks. Senator O'Toole said, "Fair play to the Greens if they make it happen", but there is no particular evidence that anything will be made happen from this statement. There is simply a statement of intent to have a group of people come together to discuss it and make recommendations. That is very different from the concrete proposals that have been brought forward, including proposals by my party, in respect of addressing this very serious and urgent issue.
Through the Cathaoirleach, I wish to put a direct question to the Leader in respect of the banks. There was a debate here last week about the banks and the form of the commission of inquiry to be set up. My question is very clear and relatively short. What consultation is it intended to have with Seanad Éireann and when will that consultation occur in respect of the preliminary stage and the commission of inquiry? The Government and, if I am not mistaken, the Minister stated last week that the Houses of the Oireachtas would be consulted. The term "the Houses of the Oireachtas" was the phrase used. That is quite different from saying a committee of the Oireachtas or the Dáil should be consulted. What consultation is it intended to have with this House and when will such consultation take place? It is important that it should take place. Many of us expressed concern last week about the inadequacy of what is being proposed, a concern apparently shared by Senator Boyle in fairness to him. Even if we leave aside that and hold fast to what is coming by way of an inquiry, what specific role will this House have in it?
I refer to the proposals of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and I am surprised Members consider these a matter of surprise. From the reviewed programme for Government, released at the same time as the House was discussing the NAMA legislation, it is quite clear the Government intends to take strong measures in respect of mortgage protection. A section of that document is dedicated to how we intend to deal with that problem. The statement by the Minister on the formation of a task force will have that as the modus operandi of the task force to be formed and which will report imminently. In politics, the establishment of something in a few short weeks is not something of a delay. I believe it will be seen to take the necessary measures.
The points raised by Senator Alex White in terms of the bank inquiry are very important. He will be aware, as will every Member, that Members of the Seanad are restricted from participating in select committees of the Oireachtas. It is my hope that Members can and will be involved in that process. One of the reasons for delaying or thinking hard about how such committees should be formed is to ensure the input of the Seanad is appropriate to that process.
While I do not agree with the proposed amendment to the Order of Business, everyone in the House shares the view that there should be an inspectorate of residential homes for people with an intellectual disability. Also, the House recognises that the responsible Minister of State, Deputy John Moloney, has always been forthcoming in coming to the House and debating such issues. I call for the amendment to be phrased such that at the soonest possible opportunity the Minister of State would come before the House to debate the issue.
I second Senator Fitzgerald's amendment to the Order of Business. The Minister of State should come to the House and be answerable. It is a scandal that some 500 complaints concerning people with a disability have been received, especially given what we went through in the past. That somebody who is vulnerable does not have the same rights as someone without a disability is an outrage. We need to respect the rights and dignity of people with a disability. Inclusion Ireland and the Disability Federation of Ireland have expressed absolute dismay at this report. While we need an inspectorate, I do not necessarily believe that is the answer to the problem. It is up to us to look after people. As my colleague in the Dáil suggested, one should volunteer to visit people with a disability and care for people in such institutions. While the Minister of State, Deputy John Moloney's heart is in the right place, we must have action to protect elderly people, people with a disability and those with mental health problems. A Vision for Change has been put on the back burner. Unfortunately, people with a disability and those who suffer from mental illness are the poor relations, which is an outrage. We should care more for them. Will the Leader ask the Minister of State to come to the House urgently for a robust debate on the issues involved?
I join others in welcoming the announcements made in the newspapers at the weekend that the Government would look seriously at proposals first made in this House and of which it can be rightly proud. This brings us back to March last year when the prevention of family home repossessions group was formed and concrete proposals were brought forward, many of which the Minister mentioned. I caution against the establishment of an expert group. More than one year's research has been done by our group and many others in the House. Rather than being superficially engaged in dealing with the issue, groups have already been established; for example, the Irish Banking Federation has a standing committee with the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, to monitor the issues involved. We also have the MABS protocol. The practice is telling us repossessions are continuing by those financial institutions which are not members of or affiliated to the Irish Banking Federation. As a result, what is needed — as we in this House have been stating ad nauseam — is legislative change, namely, an amendment to the Enforcement of Court Orders Act to ensure the repossession of the primary family residence will be prohibited, unless a series of analyses is undertaken. That legislative change must be made. The establishment of an expert group to tell us effectively what we already know would represent superficial window dressing for the public when this is an issue which has been teased out and researched in detail by this House in the past year, something of which it can be rightly proud.
Can the Leader give us any information on the privacy Bill which we have been promised but for which no date has been given? I was one of those who took a very clear stand on the defamation and libel legislation when it was brought before this House. I raise the issue in the context of the Lillis manslaughter case. A person involved in that case, Ms Jean Treacy, was described in unpleasant terms but worse than this, virtually all of the newspapers appeared to be outraged at being baulked by the appropriate action of the police in not permitting them to take photographs of her in getting her into the courtroom with a degree of privacy.
That matter is still before the courts.
It is not.
It is.
I make the point not about the case but about the press coverage of the case. It is a vital point which I need to make at this time. What is the public interest in knowing the names of this person's parents and siblings, their addresses, occupations and the number of children they have? This is completely wrong. I ask the Press Council to look at this issue. There are some very decent and good people on it, including a former Provost of Trinity College who signed my papers for this House, but I was strongly critical of it. I would like to see some teeth. This is an outrage. There is no justifiable interest.
With regard to human rights, during the week a five year old Nigerian girl suffering from sickle cell anaemia was served with deportation papers from this State. Her consultant took the matter so seriously that she went on the radio and said there was a high probability that the girl concerned would die if she returned to Nigeria because there was no appropriate treatment available to her. She has no spleen. Yet, she has been served with another deportation order. I hope it will not be carried out, but these things frequently are.
I attended the Holocaust memorial and listened very carefully to the words which were said there. I listened to a woman cellist who had been in Auschwitz speaking on a radio programme in which she spoke, in great detail, of the ordinariness of the people. I remember the words of Hannah Arendt about the banality of evil and this kind of bureaucracy.
It is a dreadful deed and I ask the Leader to bring it to the attention of the Minster and appeal not to send this girl back to her death in Nigeria.
I agree with Senators Fitzgerald, Boyle and McFadden on the issue of an inspectorate. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Moloney, to bring it about immediately. I am quite surprised that, of all the inspectorates, this is the most urgent because people who are disadvantaged at such a level would not have the opportunity to speak out. Elderly people would speak out, but other people are very vulnerable. There were 500 complaints. There is no cost involved. An inspectorate is absolutely vital and I ask the Leader to urge the Minister of State to come before the House and explain the situation.
We in the Oireachtas are one of the first victims of the industrial action taken by the unions, as passport applications submitted via the fast scheme we have in the Oireachtas have been returned. We have a special arrangement for people with urgent applications. I am aware of a case where a person needs a passport on Friday morning but the application, which I submitted yesterday, has just been returned. I appeal to staff and unions to get real on this issue. We are all in this together. Everybody is taking cutbacks and this type of go-slow, industrial action or non co-operation is not helpful. I wish to warn my colleagues that the system is defunct until the matter is resolved. It is a disadvantage to our constituents who relied on the system to get a passport very quickly to ensure they could travel and make travel arrangements, in particular those who lost their passports, whose passports were stolen or who needed to make urgent visits abroad for family reasons. I want to confirm that a passport application which I left in yesterday at noon was returned today and I was told the people concerned have to go through the normal procedures.
I ask the Leader to arrange for an urgent debate on the opening of shops all over the country from which people are now buying drugs legally. Senator Wilson and other Senators have raised this issue. One such shop is opening in Castle Street in Roscommon. They are corrupting young people. The shop to which I refer is called High Times.
It will be debated tomorrow.
(Interruptions).
High Times will be low times for many young people. I commend the people of Roscommon who are marching day and night——
Thank you. Senator, please resume your seat.
——-in protest on Castle Street in Roscommon.
I call Senator Bradford. Senator Leyden, resume your seat. You have gone way over time. You have made the point.
The people of Roscommon should be complimented and I appeal to people throughout the country to march to stop these shops.
Senator Leyden, do you want to be marched out of the House? Resume your seat or you will be outside the door.
The previous speaker may have been the first visitor to the head shop in Roscommon.
I wish to categorically deny that allegation by Senator Bradford. I was never in a head shop in my life.
Senator Leyden, resume your seat.
On a more serious matter, the Leader will be aware that since the Office of the Ombudsman was instituted 25 years ago, on only two occasions since then has it placed a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas, it is presumed for contemplation and consideration.
A report recently brought before the House deals with the lost at sea scheme. This is an extremely serious report which was commissioned and dealt with in great depth by the Ombudsman. How does the Government intend to respond to the Ombudsman's report on this serious matter?
I support what my colleagues, Senator Fitzgerald and others, said about the dreadful situation faced by many disabled persons. Regrettably, another report issued recently features in today's Irish Independent as a result of a freedom of information request. Sadly, it points out to us, once again, that in nursing homes across the country there are many documented cases of patients not being treated properly. Significant time was spent in both Houses of the Oireachtas in putting in place a new scheme of financial assistance for elderly people in nursing homes. That should be a good scheme. However, I am genuinely concerned and have often raised the matter in this Chamber that on care of the elderly we seem to have the view that one size fits all. We must have a substantive debate on the care of the elderly. I hate to repeat myself but if our only aspiration for elderly people is a nursing home bed, it is a very poor one.
Senators
Hear, hear.
We must take a much more holistic approach to them. It is absolutely shocking that after all the reports and investigations we again today read of another 150 cases of gross maltreatment. This matter needs to be the subject of an urgent debate and response. There is a famous speech entitled, "The Perils of Indifference". We are absolutely indifferent to the elderly and the disabled. The House should take on and air these issues and deal with them.
I ask the Leader for a debate on the situation in the North, particularly on the issue of devolution. The hardliners in the DUP are holding up an agreement. The reality is that if they had prevailed on a previous occasion, there would have been no devolution. That devolution resulted in a fresh start being made by the communities in the North and also by Ireland and the United Kingdom. Even though it is called powersharing, we are all aware that in reality it is a division of power. However, it is infinitely better than the situation that prevailed beforehand. On this occasion too we can only hope the people who are right-minded and right-thinking will refuse to listen to the hardliners who will bring them back to a situation they had not envisaged, where, as outlined by the British Government, we in the Oireachtas will have a greater say in what happens in the North of Ireland if devolution does not continue in its current form.
Last year 400 people in this country were sent to prison for not paying their mortgages or bank loans. It is four months since the revised programme for Government was issued but we heard only over the weekend that the Government was "interested" in putting forward a homeowners' support scheme. Why was there a delay? Does the Leader know what life is like for anybody who runs the risk of losing his or her home? To talk about an expert group at this late stage is an absolute insult to taxpayers and homeowners. I recommend that the Leader take on board Senator MacSharry's advice to the House today and work on it straightaway.
Another very serious problem was well flagged in the newspapers today, namely, the surge in the number of CAO applications for college places. We now see a situation where two students will compete for every college place. We are running the risk of having a dog eat dog points race such as we had in the 1980s. The only question the House needs to ask is whether the Minister for Education and Science will respond to what is actually a positive development. Young and mature people want to return to college, which is a great reaction in a recession. Will the Minister respond by providing more college places? That is what parents and young people want to know today. However, is he saying instead that young people should take the boat, choose emigration or go on the dole? I really want to hear him respond in the House because the situation is very serious. We cannot have our young people who have worked so hard throughout their education discovering there may be no place for them in higher education.
I request that the Leader set time aside for a debate on Lá Féile Bríde, which occurred yesterday. Lá Féile Bríde is extremely important from a Green Party point of view, being both an environmental and Earth day. In addition, it is a woman's day. I compliment Fine Gael because today its Front Bench is entirely comprised of ladies.
St. Brigid's Day was celebrated yesterday.
It is fantastic to see Fine Gael promoting its female Members in honour of St. Brigid's Day.
There are some St. Brigids over there all right.
There should be no interruptions, interventions or comments.
(Interruptions).
In the past various women's groups have asked me about the possibility of making St. Brigid's Day, 1 February, a public holiday. It would be good to debate that matter. There are nine public holidays in Ireland, while in France there are 11, in Italy there are 12, in Austria there are 13 and in Spain and Portugal there are 14. I am of the view, therefore, that there would be great merit in considering this proposal.
Yesterday was extremely important for the Green Party. It was the day on which we overtook Fine Gael——
We are taking questions to the Leader. The Order of Business is not to be used for the promotion of any party.
——in the context of the number of days spent in government during the past 23 years. We now lead Fine Gael by 964 days in government to 963.
Look at the damage the Senator's party has done.
That is a good point to make.
The Senator's contribution began well but has gone downhill.
My proposal that Lá Féile Bríde be celebrated as a public holiday — in honour of women, the Earth and the environment — is worthy of consideration.
The Senator began well.
The Green Party will have to serve in government for a long period before there will be a Green Party national holiday on 1 February.
Senator Fitzgerald referred to an issue that was raised during the debate on the NAMA legislation by Fine Gael Senators and other Members, namely, the provision of relief to individuals and families who are in danger of losing their homes. I have been contacted — I am sure the position is the same for other Members — by a number of people who are in difficult circumstances, who have lost their jobs or who are now only working part time and who cannot meet their mortgage repayments. The properties owned by many of these individuals are worth only a fraction of the original price paid for them, that is if they could be sold in the first instance. I welcome the fact that the Government is considering introducing some measures to assist in alleviating the suffering of the families and individuals to whom I refer. Such assistance should have been provided well before now but perhaps it is better late than never.
Would it be possible for the House to discuss some of the contents of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the severance package given to Mr. Rody Molloy on his resignation from the position of chief executive of FÁS? It is disgraceful and morally unjustifiable that the Government, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Minister for Finance and their friends from the Green Party in Cabinet would sign off on a deal which was worth almost €900,000 above the norm to Mr. Molloy. In the process, they broke their own guidelines and have ensured that, for want of a better expression, a friend of Fianna Fáil received a golden handshake which is almost €1 million above the average for such payouts and which will be funded by the taxpayer.
The Seanad is not represented on the Committee of Public Accounts, which is a select committee. However, it should engage in a debate on the report to which I refer as soon as possible. I do not refer to the holding of a general discussion on FÁS, which has already taken place, I am referring to a debate on the severance package the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment agreed with the former chief executive of FÁS.
I agree with those who referred to the lack of proper standards in residential institutions. The Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Moloney, is extremely willing to discuss this issue and did so again on radio this morning. He is introducing legislation designed to make these institutions subject to examination by independent inspectors. Is it necessary for Fine Gael to press its amendment to the Order of Business in respect of this matter? The Minister of State is always up front when it comes to discussing matters of this nature. His heart is in the right place and he will bring forward legislation to deal with this issue. Perhaps Fine Gael should reconsider because I have no doubt he will make time in the near future to come and address these important issues. I was also very concerned when I read the report this morning.
I wish to raise an issue of perjury. The Statutory Declarations Act 1938 makes it an offence to lie on oath. In addition, the Prevention of Electoral Abuses Act 1923 makes it an offence to malign or defame a candidate in an election. Perjury goes to the heart of the criminal justice system, as indicated by a judge in Limerick last year when a man was sentenced to one year in prison after he had withdrawn his evidence in a criminal trial. The judge said perjury and giving false evidence went to the core of the criminal justice system and the rule of law. In another case of perjury last year the judge said it was an attack on the system of justice.
I wish to raise an issue of a Minister lying on oath. We have become used to Ministers lying, but lying on oath is a new low. The matter concerns the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, who in a High Court case——
The Senator is making a very serious charge.
The case has concluded. On his own admission and in an apology to the court last December he admitted——
Does the Senator want a debate on the matter? We are taking questions to the Leader on the Order of Business.
I have a very specific question for the Leader.
I would like to hear it.
I need to introduce the question and explain it.
There is no great need for a preamble to a question.
The Minister categorically and emphatically denied that he had made an allegation about ownership of a brothel in Limerick by a candidate in the local elections. That is why Mr. Justice Cooke did not grant an injunction in the case — the court had been misled. When the journalist's tape of the interview was produced, the Minister admitted he had made a false statement and apologised to the court. However, he only did so when he had been found out. I ask the Leader whether the Minister has been held to account by the leader of his party. I call on the Leader to make a statement on the matter because it is a new low and a very serious charge. In any other jurisdiction a Minister would be held to account.
I call Senator Corrigan.
There is an issue——
The Senator's time is up and I ask him to resume his seat.
——of the Minister's fitness for office in such circumstances.
I support the calls for the Minister of State, Deputy John Moloney, to be invited to appear before the House following the articles that have appeared in today's edition of The Irish Times. I have no doubt that not only would the Minister of State come before the House as soon as possible, but that he would also welcome the House doing so to hear Members’ views, opinions and thoughts on how we can ensure the best possible place of safety for the more vulnerable in our society. The Government spends billions of euro in providing services for people with disabilities. Having raised on a number of occasions the issue of establishing an inspectorate for residential services for both adults and children with intellectual disabilities when I first came into the House in September 2007 and repeatedly made such requests and having been told it would not be possible to establish an inspectorate, it was the Minister of State who, in his initial days in his Ministry, gave the commitment that before the end of this year an inspectorate would be established for children’s services and that he would do his utmost to ensure a similar inspectorate would be established for adult services. When we have spoken on the Ryan or Murphy reports or on any occasion we have discussed people with disabilities, we have all made the point that none of us wants to be back here in ten years beating our chest about a new report showing that while we were discussing previous reports, there was an issue regarding the safety of vulnerable people. This is a service for which the taxpayer is paying. Inspectorates and standards alone are insufficient. They will not achieve what we want. The taxpayer pays that money to provide a safe environment and achieve the best possible quality of life for vulnerable people. We have a responsibility to ensure that is what the money is used for. There are too many aspects for me to go into in detail today, but we need a debate that focuses on that and which does not have superfluous aspects.
One example of why standards and inspectorates will not do is that currently no supports are available for an adult with intellectual disability to give evidence in court. We have done tremendous work in putting in place supports for children to give evidence in court, but there is none for adults. That means that many of the outcomes as regards allegations being made cannot go before the courts. That is one aspect we need to address.
I add my voice to those calling for a debate on the very distressing reports about the abuse of people with disabilities in residential care. I agree with speakers who pointed out the shameful neglect by the Government of people who are in such vulnerable positions, in residential care, in a situation where there are no statutory standards or inspection regimes. That is a matter which requires urgent debate.
I ask the Leader for an urgent debate on another area of shameful neglect by the State, namely, reports of the numbers of children who are missing from HSE care. These are children who came into the State as so-called unaccompanied minors, in other words, children who came to Ireland alone seeking asylum, were taken into care by the HSE, often through the out of hours service, but who then in many cases went missing very shortly afterwards and were never located again. The figures are grounds for grave concern, given that so few have been located out of more than 500 who have gone missing in the past ten years. There clearly has been a failure by the agencies involved, the HSE and the Garda in particular, to co-ordinate their services so children do not slip through the cracks.
There is also a real concern that, although the HSE says there is no evidence children have gone missing, such children are being trafficked. The Children's Rights Alliance has put forward a number of documented cases where children who went missing from HSE care were later found to have been trafficked, in some cases very sadly, for sexual exploitation. I call on the Leader to arrange an urgent debate on this to see how we can put systems in place to ensure this does not happen again.
Finally, I want to ask the Leader for clarification. I believe he indicated there would be a debate on women's participation in politics following the report of the Oireachtas justice sub-committee, to which I was rapporteur, and I am very grateful to him for that. This would be the first debate in either House on women's participation in politics in the history of the State. I am anxious that it should be held in this House before it is debated in the Dáil. I am aware the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights has also asked the Dáil for a debate. Will the Leader please confirm what date we may have the debate in the Seanad? It would be appropriate if it could be held around International Women's Day, on 8 March.
I am unaware of any public call for a reduction in the speed limit within the Dublin City Council area. Will the Leader please indicate to the House, when the information is available to him, on what or whose recommendation and for what purpose Dublin City Council has reduced the speed limit in the city centre? Will the Leader use his good offices to ensure that Dublin City Council facilitates the public to funnel data to an appropriate city council official, because there is a need to address the matter of inappropriate speed limits pertaining throughout Dublin? We all know of speed limits that are inappropriate in certain places, but little action seems to be taken when this is brought to the attention of the appropriate personnel. I should be obliged if the Leader would meet that request.
I welcome the Government's move to assist people with mortgages, those experiencing difficulty in meeting their repayment demands. I particularly welcome and congratulate Senator Marc MacSharry on the fact the Government has given favourable consideration to his proposals in this regard.
It is very important that we respond to the reports in The Irish Times and the Irish Independent today relating to nursing homes and residential centres for persons with disabilities. I am delighted there has been a good debate on the matter so far, but it is important that this House, and ultimately the Government, respond to it. At a minimum, there should be a debate on the issue today and we should invite the Minister, whom I believe will be willing to come here, to discuss it. The 8,000 adults and 400 children with intellectual disabilities are in a particularly vulnerable position and require statutory protection and the protection of an active inspectorate. I also believe our old people in nursing homes demand the support of an active inspectorate. In many cases, the abuse of our old people will go with them to their graves, whereas our youth have lived to tell the tale of abuse in the past.
A good nursing home or residential care centre, and thank God most of them are good, has nothing to fear from inspection, but the ones that are doing wrong need inspection and the vulnerable people living in them require that level of protection. The change in family structures, and in some ways it is a deterioration in our lifestyle, means that many people who previously would have been fit to be supported within the extended family must now go into nursing homes. The least we can do is offer them protection. Some of the reports are really bad. They refer to people being assaulted, restrained, wandering around on public roads——
The Senator can discuss that during the debate.
——incorrect doses of drugs and so forth. The reports in the newspapers merit an immediate response, which I seek from the Leader. Nothing is more pressing today.
I support what has been said by various speakers, particularly the remarks of Senator Bradford. I, too, seek a debate on how we are treating the most vulnerable members of our society, particularly older persons in nursing home care. As Senator Bradford correctly pointed out, this concept of a one-size-fits-all solution to the needs of older persons in our society is to be deplored. According to today's The Irish Times, 10% of older people in nursing home care are there for social reasons while 30% of long-stay residents have low to medium dependency. It really should stop the traffic that there is no independent scrutiny of residential facilities for older and younger persons with disabilities. It should also stop the traffic that where complaints are made, there is no transparency in how they are handled. We read of cases where investigations took place but we do not know the outcomes of those investigations. We even hear of people, against whom complaints were made, being allegedly moved to another part of the service. Where have we heard that previously?
The church.
It is appalling that this could be the reality. Senator Norris has suggested that it is somebody's church, but it is much wider than that. We should not play politics with this issue.
That is where we heard it previously.
We should not play politics with this issue but focus absolutely, unconditionally and consistently on all vulnerable people in our society.
I also support Senator Bacik's remarks about——
I presume the Senator supports the rights of children in gay marriages then.
——unaccompanied minors disappearing. It is not an argument for the HSE to say there is no evidence that they have been trafficked. It is appalling that they are going missing in the first place. Any other comment is superfluous. Can we have a debate at the earliest opportunity on how we are treating the most vulnerable members of our society, in particular older persons and people with disabilities in residential care?
I support Senators Fitzgerald, O'Toole, MacSharry and others who referred to the many people who are in a very distressed state over their mortgages. Of course we should have a homeowner's protection scheme and make whatever amendment is necessary to the court orders legislation to ensure we are prohibiting repossession. We will be holding the hands of large-scale developers through NAMA for up to ten years if it survives the Regan challenge at EU level. Rather than pouncing on homeowners who are worried about their jobs and other pressing concerns within six months, we should extend the period to two years, at a minimum. This is a very important matter and I urge the Leader to take it up. The House is united on it.
I fully support Senator Bradford on the report of the Ombudsman. As he stated, this is only the second time in 25 years that the Ombudsman has adopted the course of action that has been taken. The decision applies to the lost-at-sea scheme in this instance. It is obvious from the Ombudsman's stance that the Byrne family has been discriminated against. I urge the Government to adopt forthwith the Ombudsman's recommendation that compensation of €245,570 be paid to the Byrne family, thereby closing this sad and sorry chapter.
I join Senator Healy Eames in calling for a debate on the welcome increase in the number of applications for university places through the Central Applications Office. There has been a significant increase, amounting to 15%, in the number of applications for post-leaving certificate courses. I was at Dunboyne College of Further Education last Friday and noted it is under pressure because there is a cap in place that the Minister refuses to increase. The result is that the college will probably have to turn away applicants at a time when many young people see education as a way out of unemployment and of increasing their skill level. It is important that the cap on the number of post-leaving certificate courses be increased. The issue of further education should be included in the debate on the Central Applications Office.
It is imperative that the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Moloney, be invited to the House. The maltreatment of the elderly and disabled reflects very badly not only on Irish society but also on the Government, which has failed to legislate. I disagree fundamentally with Senator Ormonde because, in spite of our having had 12 years of almost one-party Government, there has been no legislation and no movement towards establishing an independent inspectorate. We need no more rhetoric or words, rather, we should look into our hearts, as Senator Bradford urged, to ascertain how we value the elderly and disabled. If we regard them solely as figures or numbers in nursing homes or residential treatment centres, shame on us.
Will the Leader arrange a debate as a matter of urgency on reducing speed limits and the setting of speed limits? I am not sure whether Dublin City Council is right or wrong regarding lowering the speed limit in the city of Dublin but I am sure that many speed limits in rural and urban areas are very inappropriate.
Hear, hear.
They do not help save lives or promote road safety. The debate should determine how the Legislature can improve road safety. Yesterday the National Roads Authority announced its roads programme for 2010, which is an appalling indictment of the Government's lack of commitment to the roads and people in rural and urban areas.
It is in the nature of parliaments to foster the critical spirit at the expense of the creative spirit. We do need the critical spirit and, in this regard, some very good comments have been made today. One thing the Seanad does very well is look after minorities. The disabled and elderly have been talked about today. People with mortgage difficulties, who comprise a minority, have been talked about today, which is good. The Seanad should focus most on looking after minorities in our democracy who tend to be steam-rolled over as the Government and Opposition in the other House look after the great constituencies.
With regard to the creative spirit, it is a pity that Senator Ó Brolcháin's very fine suggestion about St. Brigid's Day was not taken more seriously. We are not a gloomy and doomy people; we need our spirits raised and like the light touch. St. Brigid's Day, which was yesterday, is one of the great days of the year and it is the beginning of the real Irish calendar, the old Gaelic calendar. This is the first day of spring. "Anois teacht an Earraigh, beidh an lá ag dul chun síneadh," the days are stretching out, and when I am back again among my own people, as Raftery said, "D'imeodh an aois díom, is bheinn arís óg," I will be young again. While we may not be young again, it is a good day and we should think seriously about making it national women's day.
I congratulate Senator Bacik on the news that we will have a women's debate. I hope she is correct that we will get such a debate in the House. One must foster the creative side of human beings as well as the negative and critical side.
My colleagues, including Senator Harris, have already raised the need for a debate on the status of minorities in Ireland. I am emphasising the need for a debate on the status of children who have disappeared in our country. I cannot think of any more abject, terrible and lonely existence than that of an unaccompanied child without someone to care for them. It is unconscionable to think that such a plight is being inflicted on so many children here to the extent that is being suggested. We would be doing a good day's work if we were to have such a debate soon.
Last week, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment announced it would put in place a new scheme to get credit flowing to small and medium-sized businesses. I am also seeking a debate on that matter. I thought we already had such a scheme in place called NAMA. It is one thing for the Opposition to claim that NAMA will not work, but it is an entirely different matter for the Government to admit that it will not work by putting such a project in place. I ask the Leader to arrange for the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to give this House an update on the proposed scheme. Why does that Department believe that such a scheme is necessary, given that many of us understood that was the main objective of NAMA?
Senators Fitzgerald, O'Toole, Alex White, Boyle, MacSharry, Healy Eames, John Paul Phelan, Callely and Coghlan all expressed serious concerns about mortgage holders who are in difficulty with their repayments. On many occasions, all sides of the House have called on the Government to deal with this matter. I am pleased that the Government is going to implement the MacSharry proposals, including the strong views expressed in this House. This action is urgently needed and I hope it will be for a two-year period. In most cases, it will take young couples that length of time to get re-employed. I compliment Senator Butler on the good work he has done with his group that advised the parliamentary party on what could be done in this regard. That committee comprised professionals and colleagues from both sides of the House.
Senators Fitzgerald, O'Toole, McFadden, Leyden, Ormonde, Corrigan, Bacik, O'Reilly, Mullen, Coghlan and Buttimer referred to issues concerning the portfolio of the Minister of State, Deputy Moloney. Last week, I announced that the Minister of State would attend the House for a lengthy debate on his proposals. He is one of the few Ministers who has received an extra allocation of €43 million in the budget. In addition, he is totally committed to his brief. It is a tribute that so many colleagues believe he will make a substantial change to his portfolio. Senator Corrigan said that he has been championing the cause. His background, including membership of the Midland Health Board for many years, stands to him in dealing with this challenging portfolio. I look forward to his attendance in the House and I have arranged for this to occur within the next two weeks.
Senators Alex White and Boyle referred to consultations that are taking place concerning the banks. I look forward to the Seanad making a contribution to the pending inquiry. I have been fully supportive of this and have been quoted on it in the national press.
Senator Norris asked about the privacy Bill, which I understand will be taken this session. He also referred to human rights and the case of a five year old girl, and I will certainly pass on his strong views to the Minister in this regard.
Senator Leyden said that industrial action could affect the assistance rendered to Members of the Oireachtas by efficient and dedicated public servants on behalf of constituents who, for one reason or another, needed a passport within a day or two. I am sorry to see that this service has been withdrawn because the general public is being punished by this, not the Government or other Members of the Oireachtas. We are disturbed by this action. Naturally enough we want to help our constituents, but they must realise that this is not our decision. Our doors are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week to constituents. We are not changing because we have taken a wage cut; we will still give the same service.
Senator Leyden also referred to so-called head shops and this debate will be on tomorrow, starting at 2.30 p.m. In the event that more time is required, I intend to roll over the debate in the coming weeks to give every Senator an opportunity to express his her views.
Senators Bradford and Coghlan referred to the Office of the Ombudsman and losses at sea. I have no difficulty in having such a debate, and I will pass on the Senators' strong views to the Minister. Senator Bradford also called for another debate on nursing home schemes and care for the elderly. I will have no difficulty in allowing time for such a debate.
Senator Hanafin called for a debate on Northern Ireland, including devolved policing. I intend to have a debate on Northern Ireland as soon as the talks have been concluded. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate all the party leaders, including the Taoiseach, the British Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, and the Northern Secretary, Shaun Woodward, for the determined efforts they are making. Irish men and women, both at home and abroad, appreciate these efforts to get the deliberations across the line and bring the talks to a successful conclusion. God knows, it would be wonderful to see such good news coming in such difficult times, given the global downturn.
Senators Healy Eames and Hannigan expressed serious concerns about CAO applications for college places. I fully agree with their sentiments and will pass their views on to the Minister. I have already said that the Minister for Education and Science has agreed to attend the House during the next two weeks to discuss matters pertaining to his portfolio.
Senators Ó Brolcháin and Harris called on the Government to consider St. Brigid's Day as a public holiday. My own mother was called Brigid and I would of course be fully supportive of that proposal, which should be examined. It is an innovative idea. As Senator Harris said, it is the first day of spring. I have already given a commitment to the House, to Senator McDonald in particular, concerning national women's day. I intend to have that debate, as it is something we want to promote. We want to support and encourage women, especially young women, to get involved in public life.
Senator Ó Brolcháin noted that the Green Party has now served in government longer than Fine Gael has since 1987. We note that situation and congratulate them. We look forward to continuing the successful partnership of the Green Party and Fianna Fáil in government.
They are having an increasing influence.
Senator John Paul Phelan called for a debate on the report on the Government's severance package, which he has outlined to the House. I will have no difficulty in having this discussed here.
Senator Regan outlined his concerns about the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea. As we all know, the Minister has been an excellent public representative and the people of Limerick are fortunate to have such a capable person representing them. I note the concerns of the Senator. I note also his concerns, as an Irishman, in terms of what he is doing with NAMA.
Senator Bacik has raised the issue of the 500 children who have gone missing in the past ten years. All of these persons may not have gone missing; some may have decided to travel north of the Border. That may be where some of them are located but I fully support the Senator's call.
The Senator also raised the issue of women's participation in politics and 8 March being the day chosen for the debate. I have indicated that I will do everything I possibly can to ensure it takes place.
Senator Buttimer called for a general review of speed limits and a debate on the issue in the House. Senator Callely outlined the difficulties being experienced in the city of Dublin because of the reduction of the speed limit to 30 km/h. I am of the view that 30 km/h is too slow and that 50 km/h is too fast. Why not try a speed limit of 40 km/h? If someone runs out in front of a car travelling at a speed of 50 km/h, it is a shade too fast but people on their bicycles are passing cars travelling at 30 km/h. I accept that road safety is of the essence and that everyone is trying to do his or her best on this issue but there is a level of common sense to which we must adhere.
Senator Donohoe raised the issue of credit flow to small and medium-sized businesses and getting NAMA working. I fully agree that everything must be done to get credit flowing because without it, we are going nowhere in the economy. This is a serious issue and the quicker NAMA is up and running, the better for the country. If we do not have a credit flow, there will be a retraction. I hope Members on the Opposition benches will speak to Senator Regan in that regard. I fully support the call made by Senator Donohoe.
On a point of order, I ask the Leader why the Government delayed for five weeks in submitting notification to——
That is not a point of order.
Is the Senator an Irishman or not?
The Leader has replied. Senator Fitzgerald has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business: "That statements on mandatory standards and inspections in residential institutions and homes be taken today." Is the amendment being pressed?
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 27.
Tá
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Cannon, Ciaran.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Hannigan, Dominic.
- Harris, Eoghan.
- Healy Eames, Fidelma.
- McFadden, Nicky.
- Mullen, Rónán.
- Norris, David.
- O’Reilly, Joe.
- O’Toole, Joe.
- Prendergast, Phil.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Regan, Eugene.
- Ross, Shane.
- White, Alex.
Níl
- Boyle, Dan.
- Brady, Martin.
- Butler, Larry.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carroll, James.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Corrigan, Maria.
- Daly, Mark.
- Ellis, John.
- Feeney, Geraldine.
- Glynn, Camillus.
- Hanafin, John.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Ó Brolcháin, Niall.
- Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- O’Brien, Francis.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- O’Sullivan, Ned.
- Phelan, Kieran.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Maurice Cummins and Eugene Regan; Níl, Senators Camillus Glynn and Diarmuid Wilson.
Amendment declared lost.
Order of Business agreed to.