The Order of Business is No. 1, motion re conclusion of an agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of passenger name record data, back from committee, to be taken without debate; No. 2, motion re signature of an agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of passenger name record data, back from committee, to be taken without debate at the conclusion of No. 1; No. 3, motion re Irish Aviation Authority Act 1993 (Amendment of Schedule) (Annex 19 to Chicago Convention) Order 2013, back from committee, to be taken without debate at the conclusion of No. 2; and No. 4, Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2013 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage, to be taken at the conclusion of No. 3, with the contributions of group spokespersons not to exceed eight minutes and those of all other Senators not to exceed five minutes. I propose that Nos. 1 and 2 be taken without debate as they were debated comprehensively yesterday for one hour at the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence. No. 3 has also been debated in committee. If the House insists that we debate them, I am open to doing so. However, I am pointing out that they have been debated comprehensively in committee.
Order of Business
We discussed this issue last week, that not every item brought before the House be debated. The Leader has mentioned that Nos. 1 and 2 were debated at the joint committee yesterday, following which they are being brought before us to be passed. Does the House have access to the minutes of the meetings held yesterday, or have they been published yet?
They are on the website.
They are already on the website. If they were debated yesterday, they are being brought before the House for us to rubber stamp them. Without seeing the minutes, I do not know what the level of debate and scrutiny was. In the coming weeks we should look at the level of scrutiny that takes place at the joint committees. In some instances, it may be sufficient, while in others, I am certain it is not. On that basis, I oppose taking Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, without debate. The committees should be cognisant of the fact that the Seanad has a role and they should schedule their meetings around it to enable the Seanad to have access to the minutes to assess the level of scrutiny that takes place at them before we simply rubber stamp motions.
On that basis, I oppose Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
I welcome yesterday evening's debate-----
For clarification, is the Senator opposing the Order of Business?
I have not put forward an amendment. I have just said I oppose each of the items that are to be taken without debate.
The Senator cannot oppose them individually.
I can oppose them after the Order of Business when the Leader puts it to the House that they be taken without debate. I am just putting the House on notice that I intend to oppose them.
I welcome the debate we had yesterday about EirGrid and the fact that the Minister, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, was here for the full debate, which was useful. In the main, the debate was carried out in the manner in which it should have been, despite obvious disagreement. I commend Senator Rónán Mullen for his introduction of the motion. It was a good debate and the vote ran close. It was a terrible shame that the amendment was passed by only one vote and that our Sinn Féin colleagues did not have a full complement of Senators to ensure the vote was lost. However, that is an issue for another day. I hope that when Senator David Cullinane is up the Comeragh Mountains next week protesting against EirGrid, he will remind the people of Waterford and people as far as the Border and into Tyrone that he could not even manage to get his troops - all three of them - in here to vote on such an important issue.
That is not relevant to the Order of Business. Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?
We will revisit that issue. The Minister, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, took on board some of the points made yesterday. My colleague Senator Thomas Byrne raised our concerns yesterday regarding the process that resulted in the appointment of Mr. John O'Connor. Our debate yesterday was useful, but it is a terrible shame that the Sinn Féin Members who are so exercised about this could not ensure-----
The Senator indicated that he wished to propose an amendment to the Order of Business, but he is running out of time.
No need to worry. It is important to highlight this.
Will the Leader find out from the Government when the pyrite resolution board legislation will be published? This will put the board on a statutory footing and enable it to accept applications for compensation. This House has done a good job-----
The Senator is out of time.
I wish to make a final point on an issue about which Senator Paul Coghlan is always concerned. I welcome the ECB rate reduction of 0.25%, giving a base rate of 0.25%, announced by Mario Draghi the week before last. This is good news for those on tracker mortgages, but the State effectively either owns or has a stake in three main retail banks here, AIB, Permanent TSB and Bank of Ireland. Has the Government made any contact with these banks with a view to insisting they pass on that rate reduction to their variable rate customers, some of whom are paying variable rates of over 5%? What is the Government's position and what advice is it giving to the banks we have supported?
I remind Members that a coffee morning is being held this morning in aid of the Philippines disaster relief effort from 11 a.m. to noon. I know everyone would want to support that in the light of the terrible reports of the tragedy in the Philippines.
I ask the Leader for a debate on the important issue of EU scrutiny and how it is conducted. Fianna Fáil Senators are taking a somewhat obstructive approach to motions put before the House. I agree we need transparency and scrutiny of EU matters. However, I was at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality yesterday at which we had a full debate on the two proposals which are laid before the Seanad today on passenger name record data, the transcripts of which are on the website. Spokespersons from every party are members of that committee.
When were the minutes published?
The Seanad has the power, not the committee.
Senator Ivana Bacik to continue, without interruption, please.
I am trying to explain the process, because people want clarification. We had a full debate with the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch. We asked her what constituted passenger name record data, to what use it would be put and so forth. We scrutinised these measures. Some weeks ago, we had the Tánaiste in the House and he explained to us the process for the scrutiny of EU matters.
On a point of order, the area of justice and home affairs is not to do with EU scrutiny, but with primary legislation by the Seanad and the Dáil. These motions cannot be passed without our approval. This is not to do with scrutiny of decisions made by Ministers or by Brussels. It is a function of the Seanad and the Dáil equally.
I do not know from where Senator Thomas Byrne is coming with that.
The Constitution.
The point the Tánaiste made was that sectoral committees are now being provided with briefings and material to enable us to have informed debate on matters that come from the European Union that are within our competence and area of expertise. That is a useful and a most effective and efficient way to carry out scrutiny of EU matters. I agree the Seanad and the Dáil must continue to have a role. However, it is ultimately somewhat obstructive if we see every motion that has been the subject of a full debate at a committee meeting being opposed if it is laid on the Order Paper to be taken without debate. Perhaps we will be able to have a debate on these matters and we can rehash the matters we discussed yesterday with the Minister. It would be good for us to decide in the House what matters we believe it is important we should have double scrutiny of, because that is what is happening. To be fair and helpful, we need to have an agreed procedure with regard to what motions returning from committee, where there has already been scrutiny, need a second layer of scrutiny. I agree there will be motions for which that extra layer of scrutiny is required.
I agree that we need to debate that issue. We need to set time aside to do this.
We, as Senators, need to decide which motions require that double scrutiny. There is no point in opposing every motion that returns from committees.
I do not intend to do that.
I am glad to hear it.
Senator Ivana Bacik to continue, without interruption.
This is also in the interest of Seanad reform. In the debate on Seanad reform, we all said the Seanad should have a greater role in scrutiny. However, let us be clear about our role. Where there is a better way to conduct scrutiny, through sectoral committees and spokespersons on areas of expertise - for example, in the justice and home affairs area - let us use the committees. Let us only bring back to the Seanad issues that are of more general importance for debate.
Will the Leader inquire about the cyber-crime Bill, the heads of which, I understand, have been agreed at the Cabinet but have not yet been published? It is imperative we see what is in that Bill and that we have a debate on legislation to regulate cyber-crime, given the serious and worrying data breaches that have occurred this week and the sort of criminal activity that appears to have gone on as a result.
I, too, would like to express my support for the coffee morning. It is important that we stand in solidarity with the people of the Philippines and that we support charitable giving, which has been the hallmark of Irish life when people are in crisis. Let the message go out from here that a special effort needs to be made across the community for the people affected.
Last night I was in Newbridge at a meeting of the Newbridge Credit Union action group. I am glad to report there is major determination and a clear preference in the community to see a new credit union in the area. The people do not just want credit union services to be available from some other credit union; they want their own credit union. After what has happened, this House should support the people of Newbridge in that regard. There is much criticism to be made of the Government. I was very disappointed we did not get the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, into the House to address the issue. We did not get transparency from the Government last week when I raised questions regarding what would happen if the Naas merger proposal failed. Clearly, the Government knew what was coming down the tracks with regard to Permanent TSB, but there was no transparency. Let us at least send the message to the Government and the Central Bank that the people of Newbridge need to be assisted now in establishing their own credit union again.
I would also like the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to come to the House to inform us of what he intends to do to support farmers and marts. Farmers are extremely concerned about TLT International going into receivership. I understand that from 25 to 35 marts have been affected, that debts of €7 million have been left and that some €3 million is owed to marts across the country. Some marts are down by €300,000 or €200,000. Let us not forget farmers who sold cattle directly to TLT International. Irish marts will be the last to be paid, after banks and Government bodies. If we are willing to bail out banks, we should consider the serious concerns many vulnerable people face as a result of this development. What can the Minister do? Is it possible that some kind of rescue package can be put in place to assist those most severely affected?
I thank Senator Darragh O'Brien for ensuring all Fianna Fáil Members were here to vote on our motion on the pylons. This was an important motion and it is a shame that the amendment was passed by just one vote. I am grateful to the two members of Sinn Féin who were here and grateful to the three Labour Party Senators who abstained.
That is not relevant to the Order of Business.
No, but the point I want to make is this. We have just had a debate on the retention of the Seanad.
There is no point in members of parties jumping up and down at protest meetings around the country if, when the voting starts, they are not here. If the Cathaoirleach will excuse the expression, there is no point in half-bulling the cow. One has to be present to vote when important issues are brought up. There are communities across the country who are disgusted at the lack of consultation and the arrogance of EirGrid. I give Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh credit as he was present last night.
We are not reopening last night's debate.
We need Members to be present to vote when they are protesting.
Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?
Yes. Does the Leader agree that we need Government parties which follow up on what they state they will do at election time? The disquiet about the quality of politics has to do with two big issues, the first of which is the tyranny of the party Whip system which causes Members to come into the House and either vote against their convictions or abstain-----
The Senator is way over time.
-----and not to be present to vote on motions with which they disagree. The second issue concerns persons who make promises that they do not intend to keep. Our politics needs to change. It needs to start with listening to communities on matters of major concern to them.
I was going to mention the issue of pylons also in the context not of who voted on what but of "Oireachtas Report" which I watched last night and on which there was no coverage of the Seanad, yet the issue of pylons is such an important one. Senators Rónán Mullen and Darragh O'Brien mentioned it also, while the Minister, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, was on radio this morning.
We have no control over that matter; it is one for RTE.
Is it a matter for RTE? Obviously, it has abolished the Seanad, even though it has been saved.
That was only for one day.
Was it for one day?
Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?
I do and it is not related to the coverage. It should be the subject of some action and legislation. It concerns the fox population in urban areas in Dublin. I live in Templeogue and every street one goes down, one sees a fox. Senators are laughing, but it is a serious issue. The Mayor of London, Mr. Boris Johnson, spoke about them after a child had been attacked in its pram and lost a finger. I have seen a picture. I had three foxes in my back garden, as has had every second neighbour.
They must like the Senator.
She should put the lid on her bin.
I have pictures of them. I will not say we need a total cull of foxes, but there is no legislation in place. They are not a protected species, but the wildlife service has stated one needs 150,000. We have no figures for the numbers of foxes there are. Could some study be undertaken?
There are two of them in the gardens outside Leinster House.
Could we have a study undertaken or ask the Minister to come into the House to outline the position? I will not ask, as a councillor once did when we were debating the control of wild horses in Dublin, that someone go out and shoot them. I am not recommending that.
One needs a licence to do so.
Something has to be done. What can we do? Can we debate the issue? Can we have some legislation introduced? Can we have some control? It might seem funny, but it is not when one has a child in the back yard and one must keep an eye on him or her.
What about badgers?
There are a good few foxes around here also.
Will the Leader arrange a debate, certainly before Christmas, on the fishing sector? I raised this matter probably on four occasions earlier this year, but because the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, was tied up with the European Presidency, I did not push it too much. If at all possible, we should have a substantial debate on the sector, particularly the problem with whitefish quotas. Fishermen have a predicament. It is like asking everyone driving on the motorway to stay within a 30 mph limit. I am sure there would be chaos on the roads. With the restriction on quotas, that is what fishermen are being asked to do.
I concur in principle with the Labour Party leader, Senator Ivana Bacik, on the items my party leader is opposing. I was at the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality and listened intently to what the Minister had to say. There are two dangers. First, we must be careful not to duplicate the debate. Second, I ask Senators to look at this issue carefully. If there are matters of importance, certainly they should be brought to the attention of the House, but there are so many of these motions coming through that if there was an hour's debate on each of them, it would tie the Seanad to having a rerun of what happened at the committee. There is a real danger of that happening. I urge caution rather than merely playing politics whereby every one of these motions must be doubly or trebly scrutinised. The committee system has been in place for a long time. We give it great praise and credit, yet we are saying the committee did not do a good job yesterday. The matter received a great hearing and the Minister was present. I urge caution in stating every one of these motions should be opposed, especially when they have been debated in committee. If there are specific issues of major importance, certainly they should be brought to the attention of the House, but doing so for the sake of it is not progress as far as this House is concerned.
I raise a matter raised in a report in The Irish Times today that we have now discovered a new generation, the sandwich generation. They have been added to the dinkies, minkies and the squeezed middle, but it raises a serious issue. It has to do with a cohort, particularly of women in their 50s and 60s, who are caring for aged or aging parents at the same time as they are looking after their children. I ask the Leader for a debate on family policy, something that has been raised in the House on a number of occasions. What are we doing, for example, to develop family-friendly work opportunities? What more could we be doing in this regard? How could we be looking at the social welfare system to ensure our policies are family friendly? I note that at the Constitutional Convention there have been a number of discussions about the definition of the family and how, in the 21st century, we need to revisit the issue. It is one, particularly in terms of the role of carers, that we need to take seriously in terms of constitutional reform. In the context of a previous request that we look at some of the issues that have come up at the Constitutional Convention, I again ask the Leader for a debate in this Chamber on some of the recommendations of the convention, particularly in so far as they relate to the family. We should have a specific debate on evolving issues relating to the welfare of the family.
On Nos. 1 and 2, it is important to note that direct services by the two airlines between Canada and Ireland will start next April. Currently, it is a 12 hour journey and for most Canadians, Ireland is located somewhere around Moscow. If we can facilitate travel to our nearest neighbour to the west, we should do so. I would not like a message to go out to Canadians that the Seanad was opposing these agreements, albeit for procedural reasons.
Last month the Seanad played the classic role of David against Goliath. We did so last night also. Obviously, the ESB and EirGrid are convinced of the merits of using pylons. However, the citizens are not and it was correct that we stood up for them. As has been said, it was an interesting debate. Senior civil servants also think one should have a television licence, regardless of whether one has a television. There were interventions in the debate on the taxi Bill to prevent bus competition because the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport is intrinsically against competition, either on the road or in the case of subsidies. Today I received a highly contentious statement. The explanatory memorandum to the Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2013 which is not meant to be contentious states: "The Health Insurance Acts 1994 to 2012 provide the statutory basis for the regulation of the health insurance market in the interest of the common good". It does no such thing. It does so in the interests of the State monopoly insurance company. We need more David versus Goliath competitions and also a reform agenda with a Government economic service. I put the proposition to the Leader that where civil servants are committed to an issue and they use the Minister as a PR outlet, we must have the necessary data. How much more does wind energy cost us? The latest estimate for the PSO is approximately €150 million. We cannot allow the Government to be colonised by the permanent government to the extent that it has been. Most interestingly, Mr. John McManus wrote in The Irish Time only on Monday that as we were out of the bailout programme, we needed a reform agenda. Many of those who put the country on the rocks in 2008 are in the permanent government. We must question them in this House. That will be a role for us. The Government needs an independent economic service to evaluate the policies sent to this House and to put numbers on them.
What occurred last night was a very useful start in that regard.
I welcome the holding of the inaugural meeting of NI21, a new cross-community party in Northern Ireland, on Saturday. We need cross-community movements to address the concerns of both traditions in Northern Ireland and to promote better relations among all the people of the island. I wish the new party well.
I support the call for the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, to be invited to come before the House at his earliest convenience in order to discuss a number of matters relating to agriculture. One of those matters, to which Senator Rónán Mullen referred, relates to the position regarding the cattle export company TLT International. What is happening in that regard is going to leave many marts and farmers in serious financial difficulties.
Another issue I would like to discuss with the Minister is one that is causing anger and frustration in County Galway, where I live - namely, the methods used during the carrying out of inspections. The system appears to be designed to catch farmers out. Even minor transgressions can have serious financial consequences for farmers. I am informed that the attitude of some inspectors leaves a great deal to be desired. The farming organisations have called for the establishment of a yellow card system whereby penalties would not kick in until a number of such cards have been accumulated. It is grossly unfair that advance notice of inspections is not provided. As a matter of courtesy, farmers should be given at least 24 hours notice of inspections in order that they might make themselves available or be present when such inspections are taking place. The vast majority of farmers care for the environment and want to comply with the law. I saw practical evidence of this in Ballinasloe, where I reside, earlier this week when 160 farmers brought oil, pesticides and veterinary products to the mart in the town as part of a pilot scheme organised by Teagasc. This is a sort of bring-centre project designed to facilitate the secure disposal of unsafe substances. Under the inspection system, farmers are being treated like criminals, and that is unfair. I would like a system such as that operated by the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, and the Health and Safety Authority, HSA, to be put in place in order that farmers might be given time to deal with any issues relating to non-compliance. If farmers can meet the requirements and ensure compliance within a certain period, then they should not be penalised.
I request an open and frank debate with the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney. In the aftermath of his most recent visit to the House, every Member was satisfied with regard to the range of topics with which he dealt. It would be good if he could return to the Seanad before Christmas.
I dtosach báire, ba mhaith liom tacú leis an nglaoch atá déanta ag an Seanadóir Ó Donnabháin maidir le díospóireacht ar chúrsaí iascaireachta. A debate on fishing which the Leader previously promised to facilitate is long overdue. I am aware that the Minister is open to such a debate and I take the opportunity to request that it take place.
Senator Rónán Mullen referred to the presence of Members in the Chamber for a particular vote last evening. From time to time people are not able to be present in the House, either for obvious reasons or as a result of circumstances beyond their control. It was very opportunistic on the part of the Senator - it was also very unlike him - to make a fairly personalised attack on one of the Senators from my party. I categorically do not accept the charge he made. For someone who often states that he is above politics, the Senator appears to be becoming very political all of a sudden. There must be a European election in the offing.
It has long been Sinn Féin policy to work towards the creation of a universal health system. We would certainly like to see the development of a public system which would facilitate all patients and deal with them equally. It is also stated Government policy to work towards that goal. However, we all know the health system is creaking at the seams as a result of the enormous pressure under which it is operating. We are a long way away from witnessing the creation of the ideal in this regard. We have been informed that the HSE plan, which had been deferred, is to be issued tomorrow. Will the Leader clarify whether this will happen tomorrow as planned? If it does happen, will the Leader ensure that a debate takes place on the plan as soon as possible, in the light of the serious implications for everyone involved? If the plan is not issued tomorrow and if its publication is again deferred, what will that tell us about how the health system is being managed, the current state of the Department and where the axe will fall in the context of the €666 million in cuts which must be made? Yesterday's announcement to the effect that people with private health insurance are going to be obliged to pay additional fees took many Government Senators by surprise. This matter was certainly not mentioned when the budget and the various cuts to health service funding were being introduced. This development is going to compound the problems being experienced. The health service is creaking at the seams and people can no longer take the pressure. It is important, therefore, that the House engage in a debate on this matter, as early as next week if possible.
I welcome Ryanair's announcement of its intention to put in place nine new routes in and out of Dublin in 2014. This development, which will lead to the creation of 300 new jobs and an additional 700,000 passengers flying into and out of the country, is a direct result of the scrapping of the travel tax. Michael O'Leary confirmed the latter when making the announcement. I compliment him on putting his money where is mouth is and on acting so decisively in order to improve matters so greatly for the Dublin region involved. An influx of an additional 700,000 passengers into the region will lead to major benefits in the context of tourism. This is a matter worth highlighting.
I propose an amendment to the Order of Business to the effect that the Recognition of Irish Sign Language for the Deaf Community Bill be placed on the Order Paper and be taken before No. 1.
I support Senator Darragh O'Brien on the subject of EU scrutiny. We welcome the move in respect of direct flights from Canada to Ireland. The initiative in respect of the latter was started by the Canadian ambassador who worked with the Dublin Airport Authority and others on it. Trade between countries increases 45-fold when direct connections are established. The development to which I refer must therefore be welcomed. The Leader has worked hard to ensure better scrutiny of EU legislation. The simple fact is, however, that for every one law passed by the Dáil and the Seanad, three are brought into effect by Ministers without ever being referred to either House or to the committees thereof. This was the position with regard to the organ donation legislation. The latter, the first legislation of its kind in the history of the State, was brought in by the Minister for Health and no one had sight of it before he signed it into Irish law. The Minister and his officials made all of the amendments and additions to the legislation, which was not referred to the Select sub-Committee on Health. No person elected to office by the people of Ireland, other than the Minister for Health, saw that legislation before it was signed into law. That is not the process about which we are arguing now. Literally, what we are being asked to do today is to rubber-stamp something on which the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality has not yet even issued a report in the context of any concerns it may harbour. Neither has the joint committee put forward any amendments to the legislation or offered any suggestions about how the process might work better. We are being asked to rubber-stamp what is proposed, although I suppose that is a great deal better than what happens in the case of three out of every four laws in this country, which are implemented by Ministers acting alone. If this were happening in a country in the Middle East, Africa or Asia, we might be discussing whether the United Nations should go in to assist that poor democracy in which most laws are made by Ministers. Unfortunately, what I am referring to is happening on the Government's watch, and it also happened on those of previous Administrations. The powers available to Ministers are extraordinary. I ask the Leader to accept the amendment to the Order of Business that I have proposed.
I was slightly amused by Senator Darragh O'Brien's remarks. We all welcome the ECB interest rate reduction, but I must inform the Senator that we cannot continue to babysit or micro-manage the banks. The banks are independent and must become profitable again in order that the State can be paid all of the money it is owed.
On the backs of people who are paying-----
Senator Paul Coghlan is talking about the Central Bank.
Senator Paul Coghlan to continue, without interruption.
The banks are dependent on the State.
Those opposite should not interrupt me.
Is the Senator seeking a debate on this issue?
The Senator is referring to the Central Bank.
Is the Senator looking for a debate on the issue?
The banks must act within the law and the parameters set for them. Senator Darragh O'Brien knows that well. I am just answering him.
Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?
Of course, I have questions for him. Mention was made on the benches opposite of certain other matters. I am confused by Senator Rónán Mullen's remarks on Newbridge Credit Union. There is a State bailout amounting to €54 million. We want credit union services to be provided in every town in the country within the norms for credit unions but not for €500,000 in loans. Perhaps the Senator might clarify his remarks because the State has done everything and acted properly to ensure credit union services will continue to be provided. They also have to reform themselves.
I second Senator Mark Daly's amendment. On the coverage of the Seanad generally, several years ago I suggested the Leader invite the editors of the main media outlets and whoever was responsible for editorial content in RTE for a chat to find out if they might choose to cover the House with a degree of frequency and consistency for a certain period every night. Coverage is sporadic and the House is sometimes not covered at all when we debate important issues, not least of which was the motion on pylons yesterday evening.
I support Senator Michael Mullins in his call for the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to come to the House to discuss the issue of inspections. In the west and north west, where small holdings are dependent on single farm payments and disadvantaged area payments to pay critical bills, these moneys are required. Inspectors in ivory towers are going about their business in a way that is holding back critical funds from farm families. Something must be done in this regard.
There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the motions before us. This is not the type of EU scrutiny in which Senator Mark Daly engaged during the summer of a directive proposed to be implemented without scrutiny. These motions relate to the justice and home affairs functions of the European treaties. Ireland and the United Kingdom secured an opt-out from justice and home affairs measures. We did so mainly because the United Kingdom had opted out. As a result of referendums and having to protect everything, provision was made in the Constitution that if we wanted to opt in to anything in the justice and home affairs sphere at European level, the approval of the Dáil and the Seanad would have to be obtained. This is not a matter of scrutinising legislation that has been debated in Brussels or passed by the European Parliament; it is about our function to approve legislation. We do not have a direct function in regard to many of the directives and regulations that are brought before the House. These motions on justice and home affairs measures and any other motion requiring approval by the Seanad should be debated. I am not seeking a long debate. Scrutiny of EU directives and regulations normally takes place in sectoral committees - the Joint Committee on Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform deals with many of them - but these motions are fundamentally different and deserve an approach in which the Seanad exercises its functions under the Constitution. If they are not passed by the Seanad, they will not enter into law. We do not have a 90 day delaying or an advisory power. We are saying "Yes" or "No" to something that cannot happen without our approval. In respect of the justice and affairs motions which are regularly brought before the House and possibly matters relating to enhanced co-operation which would also require our approval, we should have full debates which do not necessarily need to be long.
I welcome the announcement by Ryanair that it plans to bring an additional 500,000 passengers through Dublin Airport. With the 300,000 passengers it has committed to bring through Shannon Airport and the 200,000 it plans to bring through other airports, this will mean that Michael O'Leary's airline will bring more than 1 million additional passengers into Ireland in 2014. This is proof that the micro-management of the tourism sector under the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport is working.
That is what the banks need.
The Gathering has been a remarkable success. Small events and festivals have flourished the length and breadth of the country and contributed in no small way to attracting additional tourists. The Gathering will also have an impact in 2014 because the word spread throughout the world that Ireland was a place to visit. Michael O'Leary has to be commended for delivering an additional 1 million passengers. He has put his money where his mouth is. He was forthright in calling for the abolition of the airport travel tax and has delivered on passenger numbers. I look forward to welcoming a significant proportion of the additional passengers to County Clare, where I can guarantee them they will have a pleasant and enjoyable stay for several days. We have numerous attractions that will offer them fond memories and good times.
I support Senator Sean D. Barrett's comment that we need a reform agenda now that we are out of the bailout programme. That is the raison d'être of the Reform Alliance. I call for a debate on whether members of the permanent government, including the senior civil servants who work side by side with Ministers, should be on permanent contracts. I question this. It is a deep honour to have such a privilege for the term of a Government. They should be reinterviewed to work with a subsequent Government. The people elect public representatives who become Ministers and the Ministers' agendas should be getting through rather than that of the permanent government. It is time we had a debate on that issue with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.
When will we have a debate on the cost of private health insurance? Health insurance is fast becoming unaffordable. Life is becoming unaffordable. I have just received the bill for health insurance for my family of four. It was €2,500, but the renewal price on 1 December is €3,200. What are we doing? We cannot rely on the public health insurance system. That is wrong. The State must manage this process. If we cannot reliably offer public services, why are we out-pricing ourselves in the private health insurance market? I want the State to manage this issue adequately.
Aontaím go hiomláin leis an méid atá ráite ag an Seanadóir Healy Eames on health insurance. It is time the Minister for Health was invited to the House for a full debate on the issue. I am sure the Leader will remind me that legislation will be before us presently on the increase in the health levy. I do not have a great difficulty with that Bill because the principle of risk equalisation is essential to the health insurance market. However, wider issues arise in respect of this topic. Senator Fidelma Healy Eames clearly identified the failure of Government policy to address this issue, given the significant increases in premiums. These increases will apply to varying degrees across the board. This will have the consequence of haemorrhaging people in their 20s, 30s and early 40s from the health insurance market which will lead to the point where health insurance will be unsustainable for the companies concerned because those who draw on insurance policies will be the main body of subscribers.
It then becomes an issue of solvency for the insurance companies.
I am asking for a debate, in particular, on the changes that were made apparently without reference to the Minister for Health. It is an indication of exactly how the gang of four within the Government is operating. The members of that gang narcissistically call themselves the Economic Management Council but, as far as I know, there is not a maths teacher among them, never mind an economic consultant. There is a serious issue. As well as the change in the tax relief provisions, a public bed cost is being applied at something in the order of €950 per night to people who have subscribed throughout their working lives, through income tax, PRSI and the universal social charge, to the funding of these services. The failure to manage the cost of running the health services, which has arisen out of the inefficiencies within the Health Service Executive, is now being imposed on private health insurers, making it unsustainable for them to continue in that business in the long term. This runs totally contrary to the stated policy of the Government.
Will the Leader bring the Minister into the House for a debate on this issue? The next step, of course, if significant action is not taken in this area, will be for the Taoiseach to put somebody who has the required aptitude and capability in charge of the health services.
Senator Darragh O'Brien asked when the pyrite remediation Bill would be brought before the House. That legislation will be brought forward this term and we hope to have it finished before Christmas.
In regard to Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, on the Order Paper, it seems there are differences of opinion on the Fianna Fáil benches. I am inclined to side with the Leas-Chathaoirleach on the basis that we should seek to avoid duplication, where at all possible. It is a point we have made in this House, that we do not wish to see a duplication of work.
We will not be doing the work we are obliged to do, in accordance with the Constitution, if we do not debate these motions.
If the Senator will, for once, allow me to finish, he will see that I am trying to be co-operative. The problem seems to be about Nos. 1 and 2 which were discussed at length yesterday at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. I am proposing an amendment to the Order of Business that No. 4, if not previously completed, be adjourned at 2 p.m. to allow the Minister for Justice and Equality to come into the House for 15 minutes to explain what is proposed by way of these motions. Two minutes will be allocated for each of the group spokespersons, if necessary. As I said, the motions have been dealt with comprehensively by the committee. Nevertheless, the Minister has acceded to Members' requests for a debate and will come to the House at 2 p.m. for that purpose. In return for that concession, I am asking for the co-operation of the House in agreeing that No. 3 which relates to the Irish Aviation Authority Act be taken without debate. Unfortunately, I am unable to secure the attendance of a Minister or a Minister of State to debate it today.
To clarify, is the Leader proposing that 15 minutes in total be allocated to discuss Nos. 1 and 2?
Yes. The motions are practically the same; both refer to an agreement between the European Union and Canada.
Senator Darragh O'Brien referred to interest rate reductions by the banks. I am not aware of any advice to the financial institutions by the Government on this issue.
Senator Ivana Bacik referred to the criminal justice (cybercrime) Bill. I will find out when it is proposed to take that legislation and report back to her.
Senator Rónán Mullen is clearly getting around his constituency, going from Newbridge Credit Union to farmers to pylons. He is covering a lot of ground, or at least a great distance overground.
It is called public service.
I take on board his points on the failure of TLT International which was also mentioned by his cousin, Senator Michael Mullins, and Senator Marc MacSharry. It is a very serious matter and I will endeavour to bring the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, into the House to discuss it.
Senators Michael Mullins and Marc MacSharry also referred to farm inspections and the difficulties for farmers in this regard. It would be reasonable for some time to be given to farmers to address these problems. The livelihoods of small farmers in terms of their single farm payments are at stake. That is another issue I will raise with the Minister who was in the House only a few weeks ago to debate a myriad of issues relevant to the farming community. I am sure he will be willing to return. We had debates previously with him, in a time allocation of one and a half hours each for fisheries and agriculture. It was considered, however, that we should focus on specific issues, as we did on the last occasion. A debate on fisheries is certainly long overdue, as called for by Senators Trevor Ó Clochartaigh and Denis O'Donovan. Members on all sides praised the Minister for his efforts in the negotiations on quotas last year. I hope he will accede to our request for a debate on these matters in the coming weeks.
In keeping with the agricultural theme, Senator Cáit Keane raised another matter that I will bring to the attention of the Minister, namely, the fox population in Dublin. I am not aware of this problem, although I can confirm that there are quite a few clever foxes in this House.
Two-legged foxes.
It is not a joking matter, of course. We saw the seriousness of the situation when a child in London was attacked in a pram. I will convey the Senator's concerns to the Minister.
Senator Aideen Hayden referred to proceedings at the Constitutional Convention and called for a debate on the welfare of families and related matters arising from these deliberations. I have requested that the chairman of the convention come into the House for such a debate. I assure the Senator that I will reactivate that request to see how we can proceed on this matter.
Senators Catherine Noone and Martin Conway referred to news of Ryanair expanding its services and creating more jobs. This is a very welcome outcome of the abolition of the travel tax. There is plenty to be said about the chief executive officer of that company, but whether we like him, he is certainly a man of his word.
Senator Martin Conway also lauded the beauty of County Clare. He is becoming almost as impressive as Senator Paul Coghlan in his affection for Killarney.
I will accede to Senator Mark Daly's request to amend the Order of Business to allow him to place his Bill on the Order Paper.
I note Senator Paul Coghlan's point that taxpayers have bailed out Newbridge Credit Union to the tune of more than €54 million, which is a serious issue.
On the Order of Business this week it has been pointed out that many people who founded the credit union movement would cringe at credit unions giving out loans of over €3 million, irrespective of whether they were in the Irish League of Credit Unions. In many cases, they gave out loans of over €500,000. These points must be taken into consideration also.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames raised the matter of the agenda of the Reform Alliance, about which we will hear more in the coming months. She called for reform of the public service. This Government has undertaken greater reform of the public service than any other in the history of the State and will continue to do so. We had the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, in the Chamber yesterday and he will return in the coming weeks when I am sure the Senator will tease out these problems with him.
Senators Fidelma Healy Eames and Jim Walsh raised the issue of health insurance. I hope to have the Minister for Health in the Chamber in the next few weeks, when a Bill dealing with health insurance will be before the House.
The Leader has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business: "That Nos. 1 and 2 be taken at 2.15 p.m for 15 minutes, with the contributions of group spokespersons not to exceed two minutes in each case." Is the amendment agreed to? Agreed.
Senator Mark Daly has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business: "That No. 15 be taken as the first item of business today." The Leader has indicated that he is willing to accept the amendment. Is the amendment agreed to? Agreed.