The Order of Business is No. 1, statements on diesel laundering, to be taken at the conclusion of the Order of Business and to conclude no later than 1.15 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 not later than 1.10 p.m.; and No. 2, Criminal Law (Human Trafficking)(Amendment) Bill 2013 - Committee and Remaining Stages, to be taken at 1.45 p.m.
Order of Business
Will the Leader arrange for a debate with the Minister for Education and Skills on patronage of schools and how patronage is awarded? The week before last the Minister announced four new schools in respect of which patronage would be sought. Less than a week after that announcement, one of the patron bodies announced on its website that it had been already awarded the patronage of one of those schools. I do not propose to go into the specific detail in this regard. However, that is a fact. This does not do any service to the Minister, his Department or any of the patron bodies. I am sure the Minister would want a transparent process. Perhaps on the next occasion he is in the House time could be made available to discuss the patronage of schools and how patronage is awarded.
I have previously raised with the Leader on a number of occasions the need for a debate on adult mental health services, in respect of which I outlined the reasons for such a debate. Services in my own area are drastically under-funded and there are problems with the physical infrastructure and facilities in which patients are cared for. It is important that we have an early debate on adult mental health services. Perhaps the Leader will provide an update on that request.
The Leader might also update the House on when the betting tax Bill will come before the House. I have previously spoken about the many independent bookmakers that have gone to the wall and the many more that are struggling. Many of these are family businesses employing hundreds, if not thousands, of people across the country. There is not a level playing pitch in this area on the basis that online betting has effectively taken over and no tax is paid in this State on online bets. This means that the main firms, many of which are well known, have an unfair advantage over independent bookmakers, many of whom have been in business for generations. The previous Government delayed introducing this Bill. The Leader has previously told me that the new Bill is being prepared. It is now urgent that it be introduced, a view I know the Leader shares. It is urgent also in the context of the need for a review of online betting and the scourge it can be on families. The betting tax Bill will allow us an opportunity to discuss such issues in more detail. I would welcome an update on when the Bill will come before the House.
Like everybody else, I was shocked and horrified by the incident in Woolwich, London, yesterday in which a young man was killed in broad daylight in front of large numbers of people in a brutal and gruesome attack. I am sure everybody would wish to extend their sympathies to the family of the dead young man. It is a serious issue, one which raises real concerns for public safety and security in Britain. It was heartening to hear David Miliband, former Foreign Secretary, who is in Ireland today, speak of the broad range of condemnation from across British society at this horrific attack. It raises issues not alone for people in Britain but public safety and security in general.
I welcome the conclusion of the latest round of discussions on Croke Park II and pay tribute to the negotiators in the Labour Relations Commission on the enormous amount of work and long hours put in seeking to achieve a better deal which could be agreed by the unions. I pay tribute also to the unions who stuck with the process and have reached accommodations and agreements on terms. While I know we will be debating them in this House, it is worth extending a tribute to the negotiators involved.
Yesterday, other Senators sought a debate on the tax regime on foot of the reports about the hearings in the US Senate. The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, has robustly defended the Irish tax regime as transparent and has rejected the claim of any special deal with Apple, which is welcome.
The Senator should tell that to Senator Whelan.
We must be careful about robustly defending the Irish tax regime. It is appropriate that this issue was discussed at the EU summit yesterday. Clearly, this is an issue not alone for Ireland or any other individual country but at a transnational level in terms of ensuring transparency in tax regimes so that multinationals cannot escape their tax liabilities by seeking tax havens, which Ireland clearly is not.