The Order of Business is No. 1, Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Bill 2011 — Second Stage, to be taken at the conclusion of the Order of Business and conclude not later than 5.45 p.m., with the contributions of group spokespersons not to exceed eight minutes, those of all other Senators not to exceed five minutes and the Minister to be called on to reply to the debate not later than 5.35 p.m.
Order of Business
I have a follow-up question to one I asked the Leader last week. In the context of the worsening mortgage crisis, I have highlighted on numerous occasions the inaction of the Government in dealing with this matter and the fact that the situation is getting worse. Last week I asked the Leader to arrange for the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Brian Hayes, to discuss the Government's view on this worsening crisis, especially in light of the failure to fulfil the commitment given to this House in late November last by the Minister of State that the Government would produce a full mortgage arrears implementation strategy in advance of the budget. I ask the Leader to update me and my colleagues on whether we have secured time for the Minister of State to come to the House to attend a very important discussion on this worsening crisis.
I have a more difficult request for the Leader. Has he made any progress in securing the attendance of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, in the House to discuss the important matter of the sale of State assets? As I said last week and as confirmed by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, it was not agreed in the first memorandum of understanding. The figure of €2 billion was agreed by the Government in the revised memorandum of understanding in July on the sale of State assets. I was with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform on Sunday evening. As he was in particularly good form then, it might be a good time to ask him to come to the House for a proper structured debate on the sale of State assets in which he could outline which assets are deemed strategic. He could also tell Members when the Government believes it will realise some of the assets. The Government has said it will invest one third of the proceeds from these sales in job creation. It is important for the Leader to confirm in the House today that it is one third of anything €2 billion; therefore, if the State raises €2.1 billion, €100 million will be invested in job creation. I put it to the Leader that last July's jobs initiative did not have the desired effect. I would welcome a proper and frank debate with all Members, including the Minister.
In light of the fact that the week after next, in what is a good departure in the House and on which I commend the Leader, we will have a full debate on the EU fiscal compact with a briefing the week before, we need clarification before that debate on what the Government's position was and whether, as I mentioned last week, the German Minister for European Affairs was correct in saying that this EU treaty was designed to ensure no referendum would be held in Ireland. Last week, I asked for the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Lucinda Creighton, to come to the House because she had said something absolutely to the contrary. Therefore, I am proposing an amendment to the Order of Business to request that the Minister of State come to the House today to explain if it is the case that the Government's negotiating position was that the EU fiscal compact would be drafted in such a fashion that the people would not have a say on it in a referendum.
With regard to the last issue raised by Senator Darragh O'Brien, the Tánaiste gave a robust response, as reported in today's newspapers, to the assertion by Michael Link last week. The Tánaiste made it clear that it was not the case and that the fiscal compact was not negotiated in such a way as to avoid the need for a referendum. That is the answer the Senator seeks. He does not need to amend the Order of Business——
I will call for it if I want it.
——to get somebody to say the same thing again which they have already said and which the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, said in this House before.
If the Government can say it to the media, can it not say it again in the House?
I really do not see the purpose of that amendment.
That is for me to decide.
I commend the Minister for Social Protection for her excellent performance last night on "The Frontline". It was a really superb debate about job activation. There was a very good exchange among all the panellists and I thought that many of the issues dealing with the change of culture in the Department of Social Protection and the implementation of job activation measures were going to be discussed. I thought the discussion was really strong. Anybody watching it would have come away with a much better idea of the enormous change that is being brought about from the old passive system of social welfare, as the Minister described it, to a much more active system where community welfare officers would engage one-to-one with people who are on the live register and seeking to find ways off it through training, upskilling and employment.
The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation will be in the House next week to debate the jobs plan, and I know that others asked last week for the Minister for Social Protection to come in at some stage to debate the Pathways to Work programme. It would be very useful for us to have debates in this House on both the jobs plan and the job activation measures in the Department of Social Protection.
I welcome the publication of the whistleblowers Bill today. It was promised in the programme for Government and is a long overdue piece of political reform. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has been strongly proactive on this issue, given his own experience in the past in seeking to ensure that inquiries were held into matters of public interest. We should be very grateful to two people who have taken great personal risks in whistleblowing on financial irregularities, and it is very important that we now put in place statutory protections for people who blow the whistle in future.
It will not protect one of the informants I used in this House in Adjournment debates and other matters.
I hope it will.
It will not.
Notwithstanding the concerns expressed by Senator Norris, I welcome the publication of the Protected Disclosure in the Public Interest Bill 2012. I have no doubt that Senator Norris may well have useful observations to make about the legislation in due course, but it is very important that for the first time, we are going to have a piece of overarching whistleblower protection in this country. It is well known that there is a varying degree of protection — this is part of the problem — for whistleblowers in particular categories of some Acts. Transparency International has done great work in keeping this issue to the fore, which has kept the pressure on the Government. That organisation has certainly sought legislation of this kind for a long time.
It is important that we have overarching legislation which guarantees protection from damage to immunity against civil and criminal liability where people make protected disclosures, and that retaliation does not take place against people. It will always be important that there is a clear and identifiable "go to" person for somebody who has to make a declaration of knowledge that amounts to whistleblowing in the public interest. It is important as well that it would be illegal to engage in retaliation or reprisals against a person who would make an appropriate disclosure.
There will always be a need for a tweaking of legislation to make sure that this does not open a way to malicious claims. While I would support the anonymity of whistleblowers in certain circumstances, this must be achieved in a way that does not allow malicious allegations to be made. A good start has been made with the publication of this Bill. I share Transparency International's view that we are on the right track.
Tell that to the journalists in the tabloids.
Having brought forward a motion on this last year with other Senators, I am glad to see the publication of the Bill. We also mentioned a related issue at the time. Where persons in particular vulnerable categories, for example, immigrants whose stay in the country depends on access to employment, have a disclosure to make that could affect their status, the State needs to protect them, for example, by fast-tracking their visa or work permit applications, given their changed circumstances.
I was slightly amused to hear Senator Darragh O'Brien speak about State assets. There would be no harm in having a debate on the sale of State assets, if the Leader was prepared to grant it, but I am wondering whether the Senator is again trying to rewrite history on the commitments of his party on the sale of State assets. In appointing Mr. Colm McCarthy in June 2010 to draw up his first report five months before the previous Government signed the original memorandum of understanding with the European Union and the IMF the figure his party had in mind, as we discovered on entering office, was €5 billion.
A figure of €7 billion was included in the election manifestos.
That was the figure included in the McCarthy report.
I did not say I was against it.
Because of the general election which was imminent, no figure was included in the memorandum of understanding. The Government has renegotiated the figure downwards to €3 billion and €1 billion of the proceeds will go towards job creation. We should not get too excited immediately, however, because, as the House will be aware, there will be no sale this year——
Not true.
——not until optimum prices are available. However, I do not see any harm in having a debate if the Leader was willing to grant it.
Excellent.
It is important to have the record correct.
I second the amendment to the Order of Business proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Darragh O'Brien, concerning the statement made by the German Minister for European Affairs, Mr. Link, that the Government was not anxious to hold a referendum on the fiscal treaty. Perhaps that is what it wanted, but we will see in the next 24 hours whether there will be a referendum held on the issue. A referendum would allow the people to decide whether it was in their best interests to agree to the treaty. Of course, other issues would arise. Let there be no doubt that the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar, is correct that other issues that have arisen since the Government took office less than one year ago would come into the frame in holding a referendum. Let there be a referendum and let us have a good debate on other issues affecting every constituency, particularly my constituency of Roscommon-South Leitrim in which the commitment to retain services at Roscommon County Hospital has been reneged on.
In the light of the fact that business is due to be completed at 5.45 p.m., I ask the Leader of the House about the commitment given last week to have Committee Stage of the excellent Bill produced by Senator John Kelly, the Wind Turbines Bill 2012, taken today. A discussion took place at a meeting of Roscommon County Council on the difficulties connected with the proposed construction of a turbine at Dysart and Sliabh Bán. People are delighted with Senator Kelly for bringing forward the Bill. I am more than anxious to have it debated today, as my party supports it. I, therefore, propose that at 5.45 p.m., after the House has completed its other business, Committee Stage of the Wind Turbines Bill 2012 be taken and, probably, completed this evening.
Is that an amendment to the Order of Business?
It is.
I am delighted Senator Terry Leyden is supporting me 100%.
For the past few weeks many Senators have been expressing anger at the way applications for medical cards are being processed by the PCRS in Finglas. However, nothing has improved or changed in that regard. There is an elephant in the room that has not been mentioned by many since I was elected to the Seanad, although I am aware it is a big issue for many Senators, that is, the way the medical profession is deciding on claims to the Department of Social Protection for disability allowance, invalidity allowance and carer's allowance. It is evident that there is a "refuse" mentality, that somewhere along the line somebody has told the medical decision makers to refuse everything and push all claimants towards the appeals process. I am aware of cases in my own area. For instance, the husband of a lady with Parkinson's disease gave up work for two years and claimed carer's benefit in order to look after his wife. At the end of the two year period he applied for carer's allowance but was told his wife did not need to be cared for. The disease is getting progressively worse. I am also aware of a man who suffers from severe depression, is totally incontinent and has limited use of his left leg — a figure of 5% has been mentioned — yet he has been told he does not need a carer.
Is the Senator calling for a debate on the issue?
I will get to the point. In the good times persons with a slight visual impediment were receiving blind pension. I know one man, a blind pensioner, who buys the Daily Star every day.
He would have to buy that newspaper.
It has gone over the top in refusing these claims.
Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?
The point I want to make is that when such decisions are eventually appealled after the people concerned have endured nine months of grief, 50% are overturned. This means 50% of the decisions made by the medical profession are inaccurate. I call on the Minister to come to the House to debate the issue, as it is important we find out if something has changed, unknown to public representatives, in particular.
The Senator is sadly missed as a welfare officer. I hope he will second the motion.
Last week we had a very interesting debate on the media in which we heard a limp speech by the Minister. For me, what was most significant was that when I took on the media, I looked around and noticed that some of my colleagues on all sides of the House were applauding, where they could not be seen by the cameras or picked up by the microphones. I call on the Taoiseach to come to the House to explain how it is that he gave such a massive ringing endorsement to The Sun on Sunday when it was launched and how it is that he was joined in this endorsement by the Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore. This is a newspaper which is part of Rupert Murdoch’s empire of evil that was described in the Leveson inquiry as being engaged in the systematic corruption of public life, as having a culture of corruption which involved the paying of public figures for information which had been authorised at the highest level. The outcome of these stories was not of public interest; they were just titillating stories.
The much vaunted whistleblowers' legislation will not protect a single journalist subject to bullying. It will not protect any of the individuals who contacted me with the stories I raised on the Adjournment, for example, the people who contacted me because their brother had been attacked, bound, gagged and stabbed, only for a newspaper to state he had been the victim in a bizarre sex ritual that had gone wrong, which his nieces had to read. When I protested about what was being done to me, I was told it was "payback time". No wonder politicians are afraid and gutless.
I want to know if the Taoiseach was paid for writing the article. I want to know what the connection is. It is a shame that the Taoiseach should write a leading article for The Sun and, of course, he was praised in the editorial. Again today the coalition Government is all over it and getting support. That is what Tony Blair did. This is how public discourse is corrupted. No doubt I will pay again, but I will go on saying this in the interests of decent, ordinary people who do not have a voice, whose lives have been invaded and privacy violated.
When I asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, given the evidence presented to the Leveson inquiry that these practices have been pursued in this country also——
Is the Senator proposing an amendment to the Order of Business?
——if he would send a representative, he replied, "No." When I asked him if he would initiate an inquiry into ethics and standards in the Irish media, he replied, "No," and when I asked him if he would pass or promote the privacy Bill, he replied, "No." It is not good enough.
Is the Senator proposing an amendment to the Order of Business?
I am proposing an amendment that the Taoiseach come to the House today to answer the questions I have raised: why did he, as the Prime Minister of this independent republic, write a leading article in The Sun on Sunday and was he paid for doing so?
I refer to civil servants working in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners in Ennis, County Clare. There is significant speculation that there will be redeployment from the office which has been open for more than 20 years and was one of the first to be decentralised. The building is owned by the OPW. It would be a retrograde step if there was to be a diminution of services at the office in Ennis in which there are some fine civil servants working. They need and deserve clarity because it is not healthy that they are working in a vacuum.
Will the Leader allow for a debate on the proposed legislation dealing with whistleblowers, in respect of which the heads of a Bill have just been published? It is legislation that is badly needed. Had we had it sooner, some of our current problems might not be as severe because more people would have blown the whistle a long time ago, particularly in the financial services sector where there was such a serious lack of regulation. I commend the brave whistleblowers who put their necks on the line over the years with no protection from the law whatsoever. I sincerely hope this Bill ensures that when people put their hands up in future and call a spade a spade, they will have the protection of the State.
I join Senator John Kelly in raising the issue of the delay in the processing of medical card applications. Of the 14 cases I dealt with last week of people waiting for a medical card, ten involved information that had gone missing, including documents, payslips and supporting medical documentation. I spent the best part of three hours yesterday faxing information to the central processing office. In one of these cases a woman is awaiting serious surgery on her face, yet every time information is given more is sought.
I cannot understand why so much information is going missing. It simply beggars belief. I have spoken to many public representatives and the story is the same everywhere. Throughout the State, for whatever reason, people are sending their information to the centralised processing facility and it is being lost. The Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly, has come to the Chamber on more than one occasion and given an undertaking to look into the matter. His claim that the turnaround time is fast simply does not match the reality for people throughout the country. We must get to the bottom of why so much information is going missing. It is not fair that people who have submitted their application must contact the processing facility by telephone — often after waiting hours to get through — only to be told their information is lost and must be resubmitted.
We must have clarity on this issue. Is it the case that local offices are getting the information but it is not being sent on to the central office? Whatever the problem is, it must be resolved. Will the Leader ask the Minister to get to the bottom of this and to assure us that corrective action will be taken to resolve a situation where people are being left without medical cards through no fault of their own?
On a point of order, I agree with Senator Cullinane's proposal. Last week I photocopied a client's application form, including all of the additional information and then resubmitted it.
That is not a point of order.
The claim has still not been processed because information has gone missing. I said last week that either it was gross incompetence or somebody was sabotaging files in Finglas.
The Senator has made his contribution. I call Senator Colm Burke.
I remind the House that a delegation from the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children will visit the centralised processing centre on Friday. As part of the delegation, I am hopeful that some of the issues that were raised in this House will be raised at that meeting and that we will get a resolution. I agree with my colleagues that it is a problem that has been going on for far too long and must be resolved without further delay.
Senator John Kelly raised the issue of the invalidity pension. I dealt with a case recently where a person was deemed to be unable to work for a period of nine months. However, in order to qualify for an invalidity pension, one must be deemed to be unsuitable for or unable to work for a period of 12 months. The matter is now under appeal for more than nine months. I agree with Senator Kelly that this matter must be tackled. If a person is unable to work there is nothing that can be done about it. Drawing a distinction like this is unfair and unjust and must be reviewed. Many people are awaiting decisions for a long time. Will the Leader arrange a debate on this issue at an early date?
On a positive note, I welcome the announcement that Eli Lilly will create more than 500 jobs in Cork, including 300 in the construction area and 200 permanent posts. They are the announcements we need to hear every week and, I hope, with the Minister for Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, we will hear them.
Last week I raised the issue of the democratic deficit and today I understand there will be an announcement in the other House opposing the need for a referendum. During Private Members' business last week we had an interesting debate on windmills. I second Senator Leyden's amendment on the issue. Clearly the Minister's reply was written by public servants who implied they would legislate and write the guidelines and do what needed to be done when it came to making laws. That is unacceptable. The House should draw up the legislation, whether on windmills, mobile phone masts or any other issue. That the reply from the Minister was to the effect that it was okay for the Senators and Deputies to do the talking and they would make the laws is not good enough.
On the issue of the democratic deficit, another German Minister said today that an offer would be made to Greece that it could not refuse to get out of the euro. The Germans are running the show. They already got rid of the Prime Minister of Greece and the Prime Minister of Italy and are telling Greece it will be given a chance and an offer it cannot refuse. Only the Italian mob would make an offer one could not refuse. The German Ministers are telling Greece they will make an offer. We are turning ourselves into a federal Europe but it is not a federal Europe being run by the EU states, it is being run by Germany. I hope the Government gives us the opportunity to have a referendum in order that the people can have their say because the people of Greece and Italy do not have a say. If the Government has its way the people of Ireland will not have their say.
Recently the Taoiseach was quoted as saying that when one heard the name Crumlin, one thought of one word, "children". However, when one hears the name Mater one thinks of many words such as chaos, political incompetence and disaster for children's health. Crumlin hospital is the national referral hospital for seriously ill children from all over Ireland suffering from cancer, leukemia, cystic fibrosis, heart and lung disease, to name a few. Crumlin hospital is a teaching hospital and has a world renowned research centre. It has a brand recognised all over the world, supported by thousands of volunteers who have raised millions of euro to support it beyond Government support. The only problem with it and its services is the accommodation provided.
In light of the recent decision by An Bord Pleanála concerning the proposed national paediatric hospital, does the Leader agree it would be unacceptable in the spirit of the Constitution to change legislation merely to overturn that decision? Does he also agree that time, money and effort would be best spent on determining a new location and configuration and the costs of this important health project, given the rejection of the Mater Hospital site? Does he accept that those heretofore involved in the decision making on this project should stand aside and that the Department of Children and Youth Affairs should play a central role?
One of the objectives of the Courts and Court Officers Act 2002 was to make an effort to bring down the costs of legal proceedings, an issue which has been subject to the height of criticism by the troika and the IMF. Sections 13 and 14 of that Act proposed one way of saving a considerable sum of money by increasing the monetary limit — the jurisdiction — in civil proceedings in the Circuit Court from €38,000 to €100,000, and in the District Court from €6,000 to €20,000. We passed that legislation but we never commenced it. Perhaps there is a reason we have not done so. Will the Leader find out why it has not happened?
One of the great success stories has been the Small Claims Court. It has a limit on claims of €2,000 but that could be increased to €3,000. It also has an online application facility that is the envy of all of the other courts. There are things we can do without further legislation. We already have passed a law but I do not know why we have not commenced it. Perhaps the Leader can find out why. It would go some way to reducing the considerably high costs of legal proceedings.
I ask the Leader to arrange, at an early date, for a debate on rail transport following the recent publication of the AECOM Goodbody strategic rail investments needs review commissioned by Iarnród Éireann. The report recommends that sections of the rail network, including the Dublin-Cork and Galway-Dublin routes, be electrified, resulting in cheaper running costs, and that a hub station be developed near the M50 in Dublin. The projects would give much needed employment and increase the use of the rail network and make travel more affordable.
The report also states that €150 million per year should be spent maintaining the network and €250 million should be spent reducing journey times for all intercity services by at least 30 minutes, making train travel as competitive as car travel. Additional capacity could be added to the Galway-Dublin route by double tracking the line from Portarlington to Athlone. Building a link from Athenry to Tuam would also help reduce commuting times into Galway.
Something else which was made known and that we should highlight to the public is that one can significantly reduce the cost of rail travel by booking online. A significant saving can be made of which many people are unaware. If one travels from Ballinasloe to Dublin, a ticket booked online costs €16 but costs close to €30 when bought on the day of travel. We should highlight the online savings better. My most important call is for a debate on rail transport and how to make the service more efficient, cost-effective and user-friendly.
I am sure that the Cathaoirleach and the House will be interested to know that the Taoiseach has announced in the other House, in the past few minutes, that a referendum will be held on the fiscal treaty.
The Senator is announcing it in this House.
If the Cathaoirleach cares to couch it in such terms, then I am happy to do so.
The Senator should have informed Senator Dalybeforehand.
Did Fianna Fáil send the boy outside?
I presume Senator Mooney will support it.
Senator Mooney to continue, without interruption, please.
I will leave it on the record. I am interested in the circumstances to hear the reaction of the Leader. As the Cathaoirleach will know, the issue was raised by all sides in this House and I am glad the uncertainty has now been removed. It is critical to the future of this country and the well-being of all of its citizens that the referendum proceeds and the people have an opportunity to express their opinion. It remains to be seen what that opinion will be. I am interested in hearing the Leader's reaction to the news.
I second Senator Norris's proposal despite the fact that the Taoiseach has been about important business, as always. I do so in light of the comments made in London yesterday by the Welsh singer Charlotte Church. They should be required reading for anybody interested in a free and transparent media. She was awarded substantial damages for phone hacking by journalists of the News of the World. In her speech, she said she was disgusted — that was the word she used — and sickened by what had happened. Her mother was forced — that was the term used — by journalists of that discredited newspaper to reveal her medical condition. Where was the public interest served in that instance?
I have to go some part of the way with Senator Norris on this issue. It is a matter for the Taoiseach to write for whoever he wishes, but I would not wish to be associated with the Murdoch empire because it no longer has the trust of the majority of the people due to the activities in which its journalists have engaged. It is now creating a smokescreen by going back into the market with a Sunday newspaper and resuming what it was doing until now. We will await developments in relation to this newspaper and see whether it is going to reach the highest standards that one expects and one generally gets in this country from journalists in the printed or electronic media. In those circumstances, I second the motion of Senator Norris.
I welcome the announcement by the Government of a referendum. We had several heated moments in this House on whether a referendum would occur. The Attorney General has moved in a swift fashion to give the people this decision, and we will look forward to a robust debate in the weeks ahead. No date has been set, from what we can understand from the announcement, but it gives people the chance to support the work that has been happening and to support the progress that has been made by the Government in the year since it was elected. It will provide an opportunity for everybody to have a debate about our place in Europe and the way our relationship has developed and strengthened with the European Union, not just in the last year but since we became a member of it.
Senator Mullins made a call for a debate on transport, and I wish to raise an issue regarding air transport costs. We all have family members in England, and when death or serious illness requires attention, we may have to go to England urgently for funeral arrangements or whatever. I know three families who suffered bereavements in England. One of these families is from your own county, a Chathaoirligh. The couple went to Dublin Airport to take a flight to London and were charged €500. They wanted an open ticket because if somebody dies in England, it can take a while for the body to be released. They were refused an open ticket. I will not mention the airline. On the way back two days later on the same aeroplane, they were charged €650. It is easy for some of these airlines to give free flights. Incidentally, there were people on the same flight who had paid €100.
That matter could be raised on the Adjournment.
I understand that, but I want to support the call for the Minister to explain or to see if anything can be done. It is an exploitation of Irish people at sad times in their lives. I support the call for the Minister to come into the House.
I would like to add my comments to those of Senator O'Keeffe on the news that the Taoiseach and Tánaiste have conveyed to the Dáil that a referendum will take place — I presume it will be this year — on the fiscal compact. I hope that the debate will be reasoned and it will not be used by certain individuals for another agenda. It is probably the most important referendum in which this country will ever engage in my lifetime. It is a referendum for my children's future and future generations. I appeal to politicians on all sides, especially those who are stoking up rhetoric and emotion and will use it as an anti-Government referendum rather than a referendum for the future, not particularly my future but that of my children and this country. During the First World War, there was the expression, "For your tomorrow, I will give our today". We must look at this referendum in that context.
I join my colleagues in welcoming the decision by the Government to hold a referendum on the EU fiscal treaty. This is a decision by the Government to allow the democratic process to take place fully and to allow the people to vote on our future relationship with the European Union. Since 1973, as a result of our involvement with the European Union, the country has been transformed. There have been tough times and bad days, but the overall picture is that Ireland has benefited enormously from its involvement in the European Union. At some stage in the next number of weeks or months, the people have an opportunity to make a firm statement about our involvement with and within the European Union. There must be a positive engaging debate. It is always said about a referendum in this country that people never answer the question asked, but on this occasion there is a duty on all politicians, not only those of us on the Government side of this House but those of all political persuasions, to engage in the debate, explain the issues to the people and allow the democratic process to take place. I am confident the people, once they engage in the debate and listen to the argument, will decide that our future lies strongly and firmly within the European Union and playing a full role, not as a peripheral, second division country on the edge of the European Union. We must be at the heart of the decision-making process in the European Union. It is imperative that we vote in that direction by voting "Yes", but first I look forward to a strong, engaging debate.
Many of my colleagues in this House, particularly on the other side, sought such a referendum. There is the phrase, "Be careful what you wish for because you might be offered it." We are now offering the referendum not only to my party but to all parties. It will be a test of our political maturity. This is not a party political referendum. This is a referendum for Ireland, about Ireland and our place in Europe. I certainly look forward to this House, in particular, playing a leading reflective part in the campaign.
First, I welcome the Government's decision to hold a referendum on the fiscal treaty. This vindicates the Fianna Fáil position in this regard.
For God's sake, it has started already.
We have always called on the Government to hold a referendum and as a pro-European party——
Would Senator Wilson explain that to Senator Daly?
Some of its members.
Let Senator Wilson speak.
Senator Wilson to continue, without interruption.
——pending the proposed wording for the referendum, Fianna Fáil will be very supportive of it. I join other colleagues in calling for a reasoned and balanced debate in this regard.
I ask the Leader to ask the Minister for Defence to come in to the House to update Members on the progress he has made to date, if any, in the provision of accommodation for the troops who are being forced to leave the four barracks that, as he outlined before Christmas, are to close at the end of March. What progress has been made in the provision of accommodation for these personnel and could he give Members an update on the accommodation that will be provided for the Reserve Defence Force, particularly in Cavan?
I, too, join my colleagues in welcoming the Taoiseach's and the Tánaiste's announcement on the referendum. It is a great day for democracy and a great opportunity for our young people.
I want to mention an issue I have raised previously, namely, the Dignity 4 Patients group. This group was set up following abuse that was caused to victims, particularly in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital but also throughout the country. It is approaching the 17th anniversary of the making of the first complaint.
Before Christmas, Members of the Oireachtas from the Louth-Meath-Monaghan area signed a petition to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health. To date, we have not heard anything back on this call for a commission of inquiry. I ask the Leader to call on the Minister for Health to come to the House to debate this issue and to give us a date on which a possible inquiry could be established. Three years ago, when he was in opposition, he was one of those who called for a commission of inquiry. I ask him to come to the House to answer these questions.
I welcome the Government's decision to hold a referendum. It is good for politics as it is important we are seen to give a sense of ownership to public policy. This is the deficit consecutive Governments over the past couple of decades have suffered from. It is positive there will be a public debate on this issue and that the people can have their say.
I ask the Leader to arrange at an early stage for a debate on health insurance and the Government's plan for universal health insurance. When we see the figure of some 66,000 families dropping out of paying for health insurance last year and the increase in waiting lists to which this is leading, as well as the fact those who still have insurance are now paying much higher premia, it is a very important issue. It is timely we would have a debate on it.
I welcome the decision by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste to hold a referendum. I am delighted two members of the Fianna Fáil group welcomed it, nearly guaranteeing support. I was very worried, having listened to Senator Daly for the last two sitting days in regard to the need for a referendum and the fact that——
Where will he be during the referendum?
That is up to him. This is a pro-Europe referendum which all parties must support. I ask the Leader that, at the earliest convenience, we have a debate in this House on the referendum. Although I am not suggesting the other House would not do so, this House can give the matter proper debate. We saw how the last two referenda, on the 29th and 30th amendments, got lost among the debate on the presidential election and the by-election in Dublin West and there was not proper debate on them. If other legislation coming through the House is too pressing, I have no problem with the House sitting on a Friday for an all-day debate——
It is scheduled for the week after next.
We should have a proper debate on this referendum. I hope Senator Daly will come to the House to clarify his position. I am delighted the Fianna Fáil Members——
He might have an each-way bet.
I am delighted the Fianna Fáil Members have said they will support the referendum. I could not believe Senator Daly was claiming that the EU was being run by Germany and I would like him to clarify his position in the House. We should have a full and proper debate on the referendum that gets proper coverage in the press.
A Senator
Fianna Fáil has disowned Senator Daly.
The majority of the Order of Business has been confined to the proposed referendum. I am on the record of the House on numerous occasions in recent weeks indicating that we would have a referendum if the Attorney General said it was necessary. That is the situation and what is going to happen, despite the talk, even today. It happened a few minutes too late for Senator Daly to make remarks——
A Senator
He was caught on the hop.
——such as that there was collusion with the German Government that we would have no referendum and that we have a democratic deficit, as he has called it for the past number of weeks. Earlier today he was insisting once again that we would have no referendum. However, as we now know, there will, in fact, be a referendum, by means of which the people of Ireland will make the decision. As Members are aware, we had arranged a debate on this issue prior to the Taoiseach's announcement. It would be preferable if the Bill dealing with the referendum was not introduced prior to that debate, but we will have to wait and see what the timing is. We will try to have the debate before the legislation is brought forward, as per our original plan. Events may overtake us in the meantime, but we will do what we can to rejig the agenda.
Senator Darragh O'Brien also raised the issue of mortgage arrears, as he has done on several occasions. There is no question that the Government is taking urgent action on this issue. In particular, the personal insolvency legislation will allow heavily indebted people trapped with unsustainable mortgages a chance to restart their lives. The Government is very aware of the problem of mortgage arrears and the effect it is having on families throughout the State. Unfortunately, we will be living with the effects of the dramatic crash in the property market for years to come. The Government's primary focus in this area is on helping those who genuinely cannot repay their mortgages. We have also taken steps in the budget, as the Senator well knows, to help people who purchased their homes in the boom years by way of increases in mortgage interest relief. The Government is not standing idly by on this issue. Rather, it is working actively with all partners and will continue to do so. Several of the recommendations made in the Keane report have been implemented. To suggest no action has been taken is a fallacy.
On the sale of State assets, I am endeavouring to bring the Minister to the House for a debate on the issue as soon as possible. I hope it will happen next week, but I am not sure whether that will be possible. I agree we should have a debate as soon as possible.
Senator Darragh O'Brien also repeated the allegation that the jobs initiative had yielded no jobs. I assure him that 6,500 jobs were created as a result of the programme announced last year. The Government is getting on with its work and will continue to do so in an effort to bring the country back from the brink, a problem we inherited last year.
Senators Ivana Bacik, Rónán Mullen and others referred to the legislation on whistleblowers. The heads of the Bill have now been published. I hope the legislation will be brought before the House in early course in order that we will all have an opportunity to discuss it. It is important legislation which has been promised for a long time. I look forward to getting on with that business.
Senator Terry Leyden and others raised the issue of the referendum on the fiscal treaty. I have dealt with that issue.
Senator John Kelly and others raised the issue of delays in the processing of medical card applications. As Senator Colm Burke pointed out, a delegation from the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children will visit the headquarters of the primary care reimbursement service next Friday. We are also informed that the staff of the centre will make a presentation to Oireachtas Members in the near future.
On the question of disability and carer's allowance, I suggest Senator Kelly take up that matter with the relevant Minister of State. I will certainly bring it to her attention, but he should raise the individual cases to which he referred with her.
Senator Eamonn Coghlan raised the issue of the national children's hospital. The Minister has announced the establishment of a review team, to be chaired by Dr. Frank Dolphin. The review team will examine the planning decision and its impact on the project. It will then report to the Minister and advise on the options now available to ensure the earliest possible delivery of the national children's hospital which, I am sure, is what everyone wants. We await completion of the review and what will happen in that regard. I reassert the Government's commitment to the provision of a national children's hospital at the earliest possible time.
Senator Quinn asked why the provisions of the Courts and Court Officers Act 2002 in regard to driving down costs and the increase in limits recommended by the Circuit Court had not been commenced. I will find out the reason for this from the Department and get back to the Senator on it.
Senator Brennan raised the issue of flight tickets. As stated by the Cathaoirleach, the Senator could raise that matter by way of a motion on the Adjournment. I take on board his comments in that regard.
Senator Moran referred to the Dignity 4 Patients group and asked that I inquire of the Minister for Health the position on the commission of inquiry at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital. It is a pity the Senator did not raise the issue with the Minister when he was in the House last week. However, I will endeavour to find out the position in that regard for the Senator.
Senator MacSharry called for a debate on health insurance. I will try to arrange for such a debate to take place as soon as possible.
Senator Darragh O'Brien has proposed the following amendment to the Order of Business, "That a debate with the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs to clarify the Government's position on the European fiscal compact treaty be taken today." Is the amendment being pressed?
I am glad the Government has listened to us on this side of the House.
Is the amendment being withdrawn?
Senator Terry Leyden has proposed the following amendment to the Order of Business, "That No. 11, Wind Turbines Bill 2012, be taken at the conclusion of No. 1 today." Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 28.
Tá
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Mark.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullen, Rónán.
- Norris, David.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- Power, Averil.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Reilly, Kathryn.
- Walsh, Jim.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Harte, Jimmy.
- Hayden, Aideen.
- Heffernan, James.
- Henry, Imelda.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Kelly, John.
- Landy, Denis.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- O’Keeffe, Susan.
- O’Neill, Pat.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
- Whelan, John.
- Zappone, Katherine.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paschal Mooney and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Susan O’Keeffe.
Amendment declared lost.
Senator Norris has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business, "That a debate with the Taoiseach to clarify why he wrote a leading article for The Sun on Sunday and to discover if he received a payment for that article be taken today.” Is the amendment being pressed?
It certainly is being pressed, particularly in light of the performance of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, who only came alive when seeking to hide behind the words of former Deputy Michael McDowell.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 28.
Tá
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullen, Rónán.
- Norris, David.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- Power, Averil.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
- Walsh, Jim.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
- Zappone, Katherine.
Níl
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cullinane, David.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Harte, Jimmy.
- Hayden, Aideen.
- Heffernan, James.
- Henry, Imelda.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Kelly, John.
- Landy, Denis.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- O’Keeffe, Susan.
- O’Neill, Pat.
- Reilly, Kathryn.
- Whelan, John.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paschal Mooney and David Norris; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Susan O’Keeffe.
Amendment declared lost.
Order of Business agreed to.