April 2008 Speeches

April 30th

Order of Business

Senator Dan Boyle: Many Members raised the question of the health service, including Senators Fitzgerald, Coghlan, Butler, Prendergast, Hanafin, Twomey, Oâ€™Sullivan, Burke, Bacik, Callely, Buttimer, Oâ€™Reilly, Doherty, Cummins and John Paul Phelan. A request has been made not to accept the Order of Business on the basis of discussing many of the items outlined by Senator Fitzgerald in her opening contribution. There are a number of difficulties in acceding to that request. First, the time required to arrange for a Minister to be available to attend the House is not consistent with allowing such a debate to take place today. Second, the agenda for such a debate is far too wide-ranging. Requests from Members have included a revision of HSE services, threatened industrial action, the pharmacists dispute, homelessness and the situation regarding general practitioners.

The area of health has not lacked discussion in this House and the Minister for Health and Children has been a regular contributor to such debates here. I am confident that at the earliest opportunity we will be able to return to some or all of these matters for debate. However, it ill behoves the House to become directly involved in some of them because the hope lies in ongoing activity elsewhere, especially concerning the pharmacistsâ€™ dispute. It is best left to the independent people who have been appointed in that area to seek a resolution.

The wider question of issues such as homelessness does deserve a debate in the House. Many of us were taken by the contents of the Prime Time programme last night. I can inform the House that publication of the homelessness strategy, as promised in the programme for Government, is imminent. It will allow for a debate in the House on how that ongoing problem is being tackled. It is not just a problem concerning the lack of economic opportunity for those concerned because the issues of substance abuse and mental health are also involved. It requires a co-ordinated approach and the provision of health services for homeless people is a particularly important part of that. I hope Members of the House can contribute to that debate when it takes place.

Senators Oâ€™Toole, Ã“ MurchÃº, Coghlan and Doherty referred to the decision by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to recognise the plebiscite that has been held in Dingle-Daingean UÃ ChÃºis about the naming of that town. Senator Oâ€™Toole also welcomed that the Green Paper on local government reform, which is up for consultation at the moment, encourages the idea of a greater use of plebiscites for local decision making. I hope many Members of the House will agree to that when the White Paper and subsequent legislation are published.

There were further requests for the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs to address the House on wider issues, especially concerning the promotion and standard of the Irish language as well as the recent report of an CoimisinÃ©ir Teanga. There have been several requests for the Minister to attend the House and it is hoped that he will do so at the earliest opportunity. Given the events scheduled in the DÃ¡il next week, none of us can presume who will be serving in what portfolio. That will determine who can come to the House and when.

Senator Joe Oâ€™Toole: Or if they will be in that portfolio.
Senator Dan Boyle: I will not even go that far.
Senator Paul Bradford: Is the Senator ready to vote?

Senator Dan Boyle: I am not going that far especially. Senator Hannigan welcomed the Taoiseachâ€™s address today to the joint Houses of Congress. Everyone here will be happy to be associated with those remarks. He also referred to the need to address tourism issues and the role of Irish emigrants. I am sure these themes will be addressed. The Senator also asked about the recent ESRI report which fits in with a contribution from Senator Regan on the current state of the economy. This side of the House is open for a debate on the economy at any time. The statistics concerning consumer confidence are affected by media and political comment because we are not experiencing a recession. The worst we are experiencing is a slowdown in the rate of economic growth.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Come off it.
Senator Dan Boyle: This is still a prosperous economy.
Senator Eugene Regan: They are still in denial.
Senator Dan Boyle: It is far more prosperous than many of our neighbouring and competing economies.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Who talked down the economy?

Senator Dan Boyle: Anyone who is involved in political debate should honestly admit that.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Senator has changed his tune. He has bought into the Government position.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Boyle without interruption, please.

Senator Dan Boyle: Senator Ormonde mentioned the impending legislation on alcohol, which has been raised on the Order of Business before now, particularly the report of the alcohol advisory group. Senator Mullen referred to the recommendation of the Road Safety Authority concerning the blood-alcohol level.

It has been widely accepted that a debate on this issue would be useful. I will discuss with the Leader how it can be facilitated at the earliest opportunity.

Senator Coghlan asked about the Kenmare river special area of conservation. I will bring that to the attention of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I am confident the proper procedures will be followed in terms of public advertising and consultation about it. There was also a question about the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It is still before the DÃ¡il and is awaiting Committee Stage, which is dependent on the committee having time to deal with it. The committee is currently dealing with the Immigration and Residency Bill and other important legislation.

Senator Butler asked about the situation at St. Colmcilleâ€™s Hospital and the deaths that have occurred as a result of MRSA. It probably would be of interest to have a debate on MRSA. I understand standards are improving slightly although Ireland still compares badly. It is on the same level as countries such as the UK and the United States but is far below best practice that exists in Denmark. There are numerous reports on the matter. It is a question of having proper management in place in the health service and in individual hospitals to enforce standards. A debate would help bring that about.

Senator Prendergast spoke about the dangers experienced by psychiatric nurses, while Senator Bacik brought up the issue of maternity services. Legislation on nurses and midwives is due before the House within the next 18 months and this would be the proper vehicle for discussing the services and conditions of nurses in the health service and the provision of maternity services. We will find out when that Bill can be introduced in the House.

Senator Hanafin asked about the bioethics board and the opinions of people appointed to the board. I would hope that every member of our society is pro-life, although it depends on how one defines that.

Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.

Senator Dan Boyle: The issue of how boards are appointed and who appoints them is open to political debate. Members should be aware that the forthcoming broadcasting Bill will include a provision for the involvement of the Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources in appointments to new State bodies in the broadcasting sector. The committee will be the vehicle for making those appointments. That is a new departure whereby Members can take responsibility for how people are appointed and how they should act in the public realm.

Senator Oâ€™Sullivan asked about organic farming and the rural environment protection scheme and welcomed the strategy produced by the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Trevor Sargent. I will convey that welcome to the Minister of State. I believe he would be willing to come to the House to debate it.

That debate might include the issue of food shortages which was raised by Senator Bradford and Senator John Paul Phelan. Agriculture has an important role in meeting the challenges of global food shortages. The debate should be as wide ranging as possible. Not only are there risks of food shortages internationally due to imported bio-fuels, and we could grow bio-fuels easily in this country and not bring about food shortages, there is also the question of getting the balance right between tillage crops and reliance on meat. The amount of food grown to feed animals, cattle and pigs is also a contributing factor in causing food shortages. The debate could also focus on the effects of that. The issue is that there be an appropriate balance in agriculture. I believe every Member of the House could contribute to that debate.

Senator Oâ€™Sullivan mentioned the Union of Students in Ireland while Senator John Paul Phelan asked about the commitment to the task force on accommodation. I understand the Minister is to introduce a report on how that procedure can be followed. The task force reported a number of years ago and brought about some changes in student accommodation. Some of those recommendations resulted in tax reliefs under section 50 of the Finance Act. However, those reliefs are about to expire and there is a need to re-examine the issue of student accommodation. I am confident the Minister will make a statement on it.

Senator Keaveney and Senator John Paul Phelan asked about the Student Support Bill. It is being discussed in the DÃ¡il and will be sent to the appropriate select committee. I am confident the Seanad will have an opportunity to discuss the Bill before the summer recess.

Senator Norris and Senator Mullen raised points on which I cannot comment because they did not have anything to do with the Order of Business. Perhaps the Senators might deal with the matter outside this Chamber.

Senator Burke referred to Transport 21. I accept we should have a debate on this. Transport 21 is progressing well in some areas. Many of the roads projects, for example, are either on or are ahead of schedule. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the public transport infrastructure. If we investigate, debate why that is happening and it encourages the appropriate agencies, such as the Railway Procurement Agency, to advance the public transport initiatives in Transport 21, the House will have done a good job.

Senator Callely asked for a briefing document on the pharmacistsâ€™ dispute. I presume that is possible. I will inquire and ask that Members be provided with it. Members are conscious of the 1 May deadline and it would be useful to be as well informed as possible.

The Senator also asked about the funding available to the various agencies that deal with the homeless. I will try to acquire that information although it is likely that the homelessness strategy will contain much of it.

Senator Bradford and Senator John Paul Phelan asked about the World Trade Organisation talks. I understand the Minister is available and we are endeavouring to allocate time next week for that debate.

Senator Keaveney asked about the Control of Dogs Act and whether the regulations can be modified. I will inquire about it from the Minister but an animal welfare Bill, which will consolidate much of the legislation in this area, will be brought forward within the next 18 months.

Question put: â€œThat the Order of Business be agreed to.â€

The Seanad divided: TÃ¡, 25; NÃl, 21.

April 30th

Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2008: Second Stage

Beyond the ten-year moratorium, which contains some logic given multi-term and five-year Governments, the 2003 changes were not particularly politically inspired. The formation of the high-level Secretary Generals group provided as much of the impetus as anything else. The Secretary Generals involved were motivated by administrative convenience and a culture within the Civil Service, namely, that doing a job effectively on behalf of the country requires working in the shadows as much as possible. Given modern technology, this attitude need not pertain. On Committee Stage, I complained to the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach, who is still in situ, that what was being proposed was the administrative equivalent of dribbling towards the corner flag in a soccer match to use up time without playing the game.

The nature of any vibrant democracy is access to information. Since participative democracy depends on the active involvement of all citizens, the legislation should be based on them having access to relevant information. Strides have been made. The original Act, the extension of the number of bodies covered and the role of the Information Commissioner comprise progress in access to information and participative democracy.

The legislation must be embellished. The Governmentâ€™s position is not set in stone. While this matter was mentioned but not agreed on during the negotiations on the programme for Government, it is the nature of coalition Governments that issues be revisited. I hope that discussions between parties in the Government allow new legislation, but certain changes must be made anyway given the review mechanisms in the Act. A provision in the programme for Government will change this issue radically, namely, the commitment to enshrine in legislation the Aarhus Convention on freedom of information in respect of environmental matters. This commitment, which will be fulfilled in the coming months, means the practice of access to information will exist on a level not previously seen but extant in other European countries. This Government decision must be welcomed because it pushes the boundaries of freedom of information and citizensâ€™ participation in the practice of government.

A fair comment was made, namely, that fees prevent people from participating and making full use of information. There are two arguments. I am of the opinion that fees should be minimal and not act as a barrier, but the alternative argument is that, because accessing information carries a cost, our political society must decide the extent to which the State can and should subsidise the citizen in accessing information. The level between minimal and exorbitant fees is open to legitimate debate.

We must be honest concerning the abuses of freedom of information requests, including lazy journalism. Our political system contributes to this by withholding information that should be public.

Senator Phil Prendergast: Absolutely.

Senator Dan Boyle: A journalistâ€™s request for information on the amount of money received by every public representative or on who works for them should not need to be made. As a House of the Oireachtas, we should make that information available regardless-----

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Hear, hear.

Senator Dan Boyle: -----and let people judge as they see fit. The more honest and open we are as a democracy and the more information we make available, the fewer the FOI requests or the calls for legislation of this type. I would like the political debate to move on this level.

Since my party joined the Government, the issue of getting the balance right has been revised. There is a process of thinking out loud in the Government. To what extent should one be given information on the decisions made or access to the preceding considerations? As a public representative, what I state goes on the record. However, what I think stays in my head often. If it became public, it would frighten most people.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: We are scared as it is.

Senator Dan Boyle: The process of formulating policy involves large groups comprising a diversity of opinion, much of which is off the wall, before a consensus is reached on the making of a particular decision. Legislation must determine how to provide the public with access to information on the point at which a decision process has been finalised, where people have taken responsibility and how a decision has been reached. Current legislation does not make this determination. In fact, it works both ways. I understand the political and Civil Service uncertainty regarding access to raw and unfinished information that has nothing to do with finalised decisions. On these grounds, there is a compelling case for a review of freedom of information legislation. It can never be seen to be set in stone. While current legislation might be seen as illiberal in many ways, the boat it pushed out into many areas may need to be retracted. The public interest is not served because it is too wide-ranging in some areas and not sufficiently open in others.

We should be honest enough to debate this matter on a collegial all-party basis. It is not a question of protecting the political interests of Government parties or the interests of those serving the country in the Civil Service. Rather, it is a question of the integrity of the political system. In a democracy, we must believe that the system is enhanced by regular changes in the business of government, be it in terms of individuals or political parties, and by the Oppositionâ€™s role in the electoral process. If we desire better freedom of information legislation that can be shaped, involves the political process, reflects citizensâ€™ needs and gains their confidence, we need a debate.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: It is a pity Senator Boyle is leaving. Given his speech, he should be on this side of the House. I hope that, instead of addressing freedom of information legislation, he revisits the Governmentâ€™s decision on Cork Airport.

I commend the Labour Party on this timely and opportune Bill. At the heart of this issue is the provision of information to the people. I cannot comprehend how, according to the Minister of State, this Bill will row back the 2003 changes.

I have a simple viewpoint regarding a matter touched on by Senator Boyle in his address. I have nothing to hide in terms of staff or salary, just as I had nothing to hide in terms of conference fees and so on when I was a member of a local authority.

April 30th

Order of Business.

Many Members raised the question of the health service, including Senators Fitzgerald, Coghlan, Butler, Prendergast, Hanafin, Twomey, Oâ€™Sullivan, Burke, Bacik, Callely, Buttimer, Oâ€™Reilly, Doherty, Cummins and John Paul Phelan. A request has been made not to accept the Order of Business on the basis of discussing many of the items outlined by Senator Fitzgerald in her opening contribution. There are a number of difficulties in acceding to that request. First, the time required to arrange for a Minister to be available to attend the House is not consistent with allowing such a debate to take place today. Second, the agenda for such a debate is far too wide-ranging. Requests from Members have included a revision of HSE services, threatened industrial action, the pharmacists dispute, homelessness and the situation regarding general practitioners.

April 24th

Good Friday Agreement and Lisbon Treaty: Statements

The Taoiseachâ€™s presence today allows us to acknowledge his ongoing public service on behalf of the State. He has spoken on two issues that are important for the future success of the country, and his role in both must be acknowledged. It is for the electorate to adjudicate on the Lisbon reform treaty. The Taoiseachâ€™s role, under Irelandâ€™s Presidency of the EU, in securing agreement on a draft constitutional treaty of Europe requires special acknowledgment. It is something to which the EU may yet return. Much of the confusion that still exists about the functions and structures of the EU could have been dealt with more adequately by the Taoiseachâ€™s work in producing a single document that was easily understood than via subsequent developments. I am certain the European Union will return to that work.

The Taoiseachâ€™s success in developing the Northern Ireland peace process deserves repeated acknowledgement in terms of the political history of the State. That it was done at great personal cost in terms of family life adds to the debt the country owes him.

The Taoiseach deserves great credit too for his work on the social partnership process. Several partnership agreements have been devised through his skills in conciliation and his brokerage. Several important social documents have been produced which brought about greater cohesion and economic success. The Taoiseach has perfected a model that all in public life must seek to emulate if we are to ensure this Stateâ€™s continued success.

The Taoiseach showed his political skills too in developing his party as a party of Government and in ensuring Government was about compromises and working with others to agree programmes for Government that were in the best interests of the State. !n 2007, the Taoiseach made the decision to bring my party into negotiations with his party to form a new Government. He has undertaken the same process in respect of other political parties in this Chamber. It is another of his notable political achievements that future Governments will be built upon that consensus model. The State can only operate effectively by achieving that level of agreement.

The Taoiseach has had an impressive political tenure with more than 30 years as a Deputy, several years as a Minister and 11 years as Head of Government. He was remarkably young when he became involved in politics. I was 12 years old when he entered Dublin Corporation and 14 years old when he was first elected to DÃ¡il Ã‰ireann. Despite this, our political lives have seemed to intersect at significant times in the life of this State. Before I had the honour of being a Member of either House, the Taoiseach gave me the honour, through the social partnership process, of being appointed to and serving for several years on the National Economic and Social Council. That honour was added to when he appointed my colleague, Senator DÃ©irdre de BÃºrca, and me to serve in this House as the first representatives of our party. I would like to highlight that the decision to bring the Green Party into government had to have been made by the Taoiseach, as an individual, based on the further needs of this country and the need to build on political co-operation and consensus. I may be selfish in thinking it might be seen to be the highest of his political achievements. There are many more to come. He is still a relatively young man, especially in political terms. I am certain he will continue to have a public service role on behalf of this country, perhaps in the international arena where he has gathered so much experience. That experience must be put to the best use for this country. Thank you, Taoiseach.

April 24th

Tourism Industry: Statements.

I welcome the Minister to the House and I congratulate him on his achievements in this brief in the ten months since the Cabinet was established. He has brought with him the experience of his previous briefs, which number four or five, and has achieved much in each of the respective areas, arts, sports and tourism. The statements he made today doubtless outline the need to re-examine the dangers that accompany the requirement for a proper policy in tourism, particularly because of international economic adjustment, the appreciation of the euro against the dollar and sterling, and the need to have a tourism product that represents true value for money.

The elements of a tourism policy are simple. We want to bring more people into the country and to encourage more Irish people to take their holidays within Ireland. While we were going through a period of affluence, tourism was not perhaps as successful as we might have wished. The most recent statistics, for February, admittedly not high tourist season in this country, show 70,000 more trips out of the country than came in. Because we do not have a weather-related tourist industry we should strive to have an all-year-round tourist product. We should aim to attract more people to the country and to enjoy what it has to offer at all times of the year. The challenge for the Minister is to achieve that.

The marketing of tourism on an all-island basis is welcome and we will reap rewards for it. With regard to a consumer driven marketing drive, we may need to go further in the brand identification of particular tourist establishments. In the past Bord FÃ¡ilte had its shamrock as did bed and breakfasts. There is concern and ongoing debate about value for money as it applies to various destinations and, in this country in particular, to hotels. Now that the euro will make it more expensive for people coming into the country perhaps we should initiate something similar to the old shamrock scheme whereby particular establishments are clearly identified as offering the best value for money.

There are other ways for hotels and tourist establishments to identify themselves as being consumer oriented. I took part in a conference yesterday organised by the Green FÃ¡ilte group, an organisation that gives accreditation to hotels for their environmental practice. This might be for their waste and energy management, and for offering a service to customers that highlights environmentally friendly practice at the best possible level. Under this scheme accreditation has been given to dozens of hotels across the country, mainly in the Cork area because that is where the scheme originated. It has the potential to acquire international recognition for the type of quality tourist product we can offer. It signifies that our hotels and tourist establishments are striving to achieve different standards that will appeal to a certain type of consumer. The whole idea of green tourism has gone beyond the notion of the backpacker and the â‚¬5 a day spending allowance, especially when we include what is called third age tourism, aimed at people who are retiring earlier and who want to travel. In this regard, we could offer a tourist product that we probably are not yet exploiting to the greatest possible extent.

Senator Kelly mentioned areas in the country that appear to benefit most from tourism and he noted the south west in particular. An argument can be made that even in those areas to which high numbers of tourists are attracted, within those areas dispersement does not take place. Cork, in particular, has to strive very hard to keep people within the city area. We seem to have a short hand when it comes to tourism. Tourists are encouraged to think of Blarney Castle and Killarney and are not being offered all that is on offer within particular regions. That is also true of the spine of Ireland, the midlands region. We must be more open in making those areas attractive. Cork city works particularly hard to maintain its status as a festival city. There is not a month during which there is not a dedicated festival in the city and most of them are very successful. It hosts the film, folk, choral - which is on next week - and the midsummer festivals. This is something other regions might try to emulate.

The tourist industry has had the benefit of employing many non-nationals in recent years. That has been to the advantage of the industry because the levels of helpfulness and courtesy shown by many non-nationals are raising standards in the industry that might have been somewhat neglected. Despite our reputation for being a friendly nation, in some of our tourist establishments those levels of courtesy have not always been what they should. That has improved in recent years. There are difficulties, however. Language skills must be worked upon and if the tourist industry employs more such persons it must ensure that communications skills are improved, to accompany the diligence and the courtesy. There have been some minor problems in this area. The Department and tourism agencies should address this.

As we are in a period of economic adjustment, emphasis must be placed on realising the potential of tourism as an economic constant. If it is properly supported and reaches its potential, it can help us over this period of economic adjustment in a way that reliance on the construction industry would not because it is subject to fluctuations. If we had an all-year-round tourism industry that would attract large numbers of people to the country, much of the uncertainty that exists now might disappear. We need to reach that level and are making moves to do that. The marketing of the island on an all-island basis is a move in that direction. However, even the Minister would accept that there is a journey ahead and, while realising the potential of the Irish tourism industry, I am sure he would accept it needs a great deal more effort to get to where we want it.

April 23rd

Order of Business.

I welcome the statement by Senator Jim Walsh. The absolute privilege we enjoy in this House allows us to express our strongly held opinions in a way that is not available to other citizens in this State. We should always be aware of the context in which we use that privilege.

I agree with Senator Oâ€™Toole that there is a need for a debate on the report of the alcohol advisory group. The Minister has stated he intends to introduce legislation on intoxicating liquor and public order but in advance of such a Bill being published, it would serve this House well to discuss the recommendations of the advisory group.

I believe long-awaited decisions on the gateways innovation fund are imminent. This fund is for the development of hubs of population centres outside the Dublin area and is especially important vis-Ã -vis the national spatial strategy. If we can anticipate the making of those decisions and schedule a debate on the national spatial strategy itself and the impact of the gateways innovation fund, public debate will be well served.

April 22nd

National Skills Strategy: Statements.

This is an important debate at a time of economic change and adjustment. During the height of the Celtic tiger, the economy perhaps relied too greatly on the construction industry. For example, some 14% of GDP was produced by the house building boom. Now we have a situation where fewer houses will be built and where those involved in the construction industry must seek either to regrade their skills or secure alternative employment. Thankfully, one opportunity already exists. Although some 50% of our housing stock was built since 1990, many of these properties were not constructed to proper energy standards. This presents a great opportunity to augment the skills of workers in the construction industry so that they can retrofit the existing housing stock to make it more energy efficient.

The Government has an important role to play in helping to implement the targets and objectives outlined in the national skills strategy. In particular, we must consider the changes required in the education system. I recently attended several events in Cork that gave me great heart for the future. One of these was an awards ceremony for participants in the Ballyphehane-Togher community development project. While there has been much talk of third and fourth level education, informal education in community settings is playing an increasingly important role in helping people attain basic skills, including literacy, communications skills and computer and information technology skills.

At this event, certificates were handed out by the Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Carey. It was a joyous occasion celebrating those who had acquired particular skills in a community setting, a service that would not have existed ten to 15 years ago. Such projects are a welcome development in terms of providing basic skills education for people in their community. In the case of Ballyphehane-Togher, the project is also used as an education centre for workers from An Post who are located nearby. The links between community education, formal education and further education will be an important element in rolling out our skills strategy in the future.

The term â€œupskillingâ€ is unsatisfactory. It is a question of adding to peopleâ€™s skills and putting those skills in a new context. Peopleâ€™s skills are valid throughout their working lives. We must look too to reskilling people in skills that may have lost their practice. The second event I attended in Cork in recent days was the Irish Heritage Trust function arising from the announcement of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in regard to Fota House. Much of the restoration work involved in that project, including carpentry, plastering work, the restoration of windows and so on, involves skills that are fast disappearing. As well as teaching the new skills of information technology, we must look to reviving skills that have been lost. If we can make that marriage of convenience, I am confident the skills strategy will achieve its objectives.

April 17th

Order of Business.

I join in the congratulations of other party leaders and Senators on the success of Senator Cannon on becoming the leader of the Progressive Democrats. I add my commiseration to our other colleague, Senator Oâ€™Malley. It is the first time a political party has been led by someone in Seanad Ã‰ireann. There was such an occasion in the Seanad of the Irish Free State when a short-lived party, a breakaway from Cumann na nGaedhael called Clann Ã‰ireann, existed. However, it was not particularly electorally successful. If the inheritors of Cumann na nGaedhael want to form splinter groups, they are welcome to do so in the Chamber.

Senator Paudie Coffey: The Senator should mind his business and we will mind ours.

An Cathaoirleach: Senators should not canvass.

Senator Maurice Cummins: The Green Party has enough to deal with.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I am sick of the Senator lecturing us.

Senator Liam Twomey: We see Senator Boyleâ€™s party as a splinter group.

Senator Dan Boyle: I might be of assistance in terms of inquiries into a civil partnership Bill. The heads of the Bill exist. There was an accurate press report in The Irish Times as to what the heads might contain. As a Member of the House, that is not a satisfactory way to communicate anything. It is my understanding that one aspect of the Bill is under Cabinet consideration. Once that discussion has concluded, the heads will be made available immediately. We all look forward to an opportunity to discuss the contents of the published Bill.

Senator Ivana Bacik: When will that be?

Senator Dan Boyle: As far as I understand, the timetable is still on course for September.

On the Lisbon treaty, the President of the European Parliament made a fine address to the House in recent weeks. It has been suggested on the Order of Business that the best way for the House to approach the subject would be to hold a series of debates on different aspects of the treaty, such as the social charter and the questions of what protections exist under the new structures in terms of taxation, etc. and whether Irish neutrality would be threatened in the future European Union. Were we to have a number of individual debates, it would help the public debate that must occur in advance of the referendum. Will the Leader consider this matter?

April 10th

Order of Business.

The coming days will see the imminent publication of a Green Paper on local government reform and this House should take the first available opportunity to discuss the contents of that document. We should be aware that the need for local government reform is accepted across the political system. The existence of tribunals of inquiry come about in the main because of the existence of corruption in local government, which had been perpetrated by representatives of several political parties. The need to bring about reform in local government is an issue this House must take seriously. I hope such a debate would accept admissions from people involved in several political parties on the chronic planning that has come about as a result of that actual corruption and that it would also address the need to bring about real reform in our local government system.

I join in the acknowledgement today of the tenth anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland are vastly different places because of it. In discussing the institutions that sprung from the Agreement, we must accept that it is still a work in progress and that there is still enmity between communities, particularly in the northern part of the island towards which we should be working to bring a solution.

I support the call for a wider debate on the need for, and possibility of, a boycott of the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games. The awarding of the hosting of the Olympics is an intensely political act. It is given to a host government to show that government and its country in the best possible light. We have had experiences in the past such as the notorious 1936 Olympic Games with Adolph Hitler, and how its opening ceremony was used. We have seen how boycotts have been used for political purposes in the past, when President Jimmy Carter in the United States, seeking to be re-elected, decided not to send American athletes to the Olympics in Moscow in 1980 â€” and how the Russians replied in kind in 1984. There is a need to look at the Olympic Games in Beijing in a proportionate way to see how international disdain for the activities of the Chinese Government, particularly as regards Tibet, may be best expressed. I call for a debate in this House about appropriate measures such as looking at how the opening ceremony is broadcast and whether we should be encouraging Irish people to participate in it. That would be a good use of the Houseâ€™s time.

April 8th

Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs: Motion.

In looking at this Private Membersâ€™ motion I have to ask whether the situation as regards people with special educational needs is what it should be. I am certain the answer is â€œNoâ€, and I do not regard that as acceptable. Neither do I believe the progress being made in this area is sufficient, or happening fast enough. In supporting a motion such as this, I must ask myself if I am able to bring about any faster the necessary improvements that are needed. Again, the answer is â€œNoâ€.

In this regard, there are certain points we must acknowledge. First, the legislation must be admitted as an achievement. Of the three relevant Acts passed during the term of the last DÃ¡il and Seanad, namely, the Disability Act, the Citizens Information Act and the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act, the latter is the most important and best drafted. Everyone who considers the wider debate will accept that the Disability Act is not what it could be. It is subject to review and needs to be greatly improved.

There is wider political debate on the correctness of the decisions made, not only recently but previously, in respect of the dismantling of the National Rehabilitation Board, for which I worked for a short period. I refer to merging part of the board with FÃS and part with Comhairle. We need to revisit whether this is the best way to provide particular services for those with disabilities, especially meeting employment needs, of which education comprises an important part.

The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act is fine legislation. The political dissent that exists in respect of it was articulated most clearly by Senator Oâ€™Toole. His connection with education in general and the teachersâ€™ unions in particular affords him particular insight into this matter. The clarity provided in the Minister of Stateâ€™s speech, to the effect that all the provisions of the legislation will be implemented by October 2010, gives me some hope that the movement that needs to be made in this area will be made. The date is still two and a half years away and many of us in this Chamber and beyond would like a step-by-step approach between now and then to ensure that the resources are rolled out properly.

It was hoped there would be front-loading of educational funding this year in the order of â‚¬350 million in excess of the normal inflation-based rate received by the Department of Education and Science. An extra â‚¬100 million was provided but the shortfall of â‚¬250 million has made a significant difference in slowing down the rate of progress that would otherwise be achieved. The fact that there is a new leader of Fianna FÃ¡il might offer some hope of a change in direction in this regard. One of the achievements we need to acknowledge is that when he was Minister for Health and Children, which position he did not enjoy, he instigated the idea of multi-annual funding.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Angola, was it?

Senator Dan Boyle: He gave the impression he would prefer to be elsewhere. He instigated the idea of multi-annual funding, particularly in respect of those with an intellectual disability. Deputy Cowenâ€™s having held the health portfolio will help in shaping future Government policy in this area. We can only hope that is the case.

I agree with the sentiments of Senators on the parents of autistic children having to take court cases. I have made the same point in this Chamber. Unfortunately, all political parties in our system need to acknowledge a failing in this regard. The first court case of which I am aware to test the constitutional provision on the right to education preceded the Sinnott case. It involved a Cork mother, Marie Oâ€™Donoghue, who sought proper access to education for her autistic son Paul. This case led to the narrow judgment that our constitutional provision on education only entitles our citizens to basic primary education. As we seek to improve legislation, perhaps we need to improve the constitutional provision. Many of us in public life accept that education is not just about a basic grounding in three Râ€™s or basic life skills and that it is a life process itself. Until we recognise that it is ongoing and should be available to all citizens to the highest possible standard, we will be running behind.

I mention the Oâ€™Donoghue case because it went all the way to the Supreme Court, as unfortunately have many subsequent cases, including the Sinnott case and the Ã“ CuanachÃ¡in case, which has been in the court quite recently. The first case occurred when the then Minister for Education was a Labour Party Minister in a Fine Gael-Labour Party Government. The principle of forcing parents to go to court to access the education system reflects badly on a number of Governments in recent years and all the parties that constituted them. I hope we can bring the practice to an end fairly soon.

On the wider aspects of meeting special educational needs, I acknowledge many of the statistics quoted by the Minister of State. It is true that a certain number of respite beds are in existence and a certain number of staff have been employed. If we are to have ongoing reform of the health service, direct responsibility for, and the funding of, services for people with disabilities should probably not lie with the Health Service Executive.

I had a meeting on homelessness today and noted significant questions must be asked on whether HSE funding in this area is influenced disproportionately by decisions the executive must make on supporting the hospital-based health service. If we are to have a proper review of the health system, money directed towards social inclusion, tackling homeless and meeting special educational needs, which do not fall within the remit of Departments such as the Department of Education and Science and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, should not be allocated by the HSE. What is happening is that the areas in question are not prioritised in the wider debate on health spending and are not being protected as a result. This results in diseconomies in terms of social policy.

I hope part of the review process that will see the full implementation of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act will address these inconsistencies. It would be unfair if the Bill were implemented fully while obstacles existed in respect of wider funding practices, thereby resulting in unnecessary funding anomalies for those who should be accessing services which we all acknowledge are not what they should be.

I am a member of a party that is part of a coalition Government and our belief is that participation in this Government will bring about the changes deemed necessary. Consequently I support the amendment and reject the Private Membersâ€™ motion. I hope there is a way for us all to consider the wider sentiments in the original motion and the Governmentâ€™s amendment, which acknowledges the efforts made by it to ensure the ongoing problems regarding education for people with special needs can be dealt with and the deadline of October 2010 can be met.

April 8th

Order of Business

The statement by the Taoiseach last week should remind Members that he will remain in office until the date on which he has decided to step down. It would be more appropriate to have a debate closer to that date rather than sooner, not so much to pass judgment but to acknowledge his contribution over his period in office. I acknowledge that the decision has been made and all of us in public life should be allowed to take cognisance of it and delve deeper into its significance as time passes. Part of the problem over recent months is the way in which knee-jerk reactions have informed public debate in a way that public debate should not otherwise be informed.

I agree with Senator Oâ€™Toole on the need for a debate on the Beijing Olympics, the manner in which the current relay of the Olympic torch is being used for political purposes and the impact of this on the continuing occupation of Tibet by the Chinese.

Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.

Senator Dan Boyle: The House can have a valuable debate on this to support the cause.

The second debate I call for has more local significance, although it has national importance. A report has just been produced on the national aviation strategy, particularly on Cork Airport and its relationship with Dublin Airport. It was compiled by Mr. Peter Cassells on behalf of the Government. While it attempts to employ the wisdom of Solomon in dealing with the problemâ€”â€”

Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Green Party in Lisbonâ€”â€”

Senator Dan Boyle: â€”â€”there are wider issues that need to be debated in this Chamber.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Is the Senator supporting the Government?

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Boyle without interruption.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Is the Senator supporting the Government?

Senator Dan Boyle: I am surprised the Senator even needs to ask that question.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Is the Senator reneging on the people of Cork?

Senator Dan Boyle: Am I not sitting on this side of the Chamber?

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Is the Senator turning his back on the people of Cork?

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Boyle without interruption.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: He is turning his back on the people of Cork.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Buttimer should not be interrupting.

Senator Dan Boyle: There is a certain Senator who sometimes believes a meeting in this Chamber is a meeting of the Cork GAA county board. There should be a better sense of decorum.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: What is wrong with the GAA? The Senator was never involved so he would not know about it. The Senator should not be denigrating Cork. He is in enough trouble as it is.

Senator David Norris: Could someone tell me what is the GAA? Is it a political organisation?

An Cathaoirleach: The Senators should speak seriously on the Order of Business. I ask Senator Boyle to continue without interruption.

Senator Dan Boyle: Along with Senator Fitzgerald, I refer to the ongoing events in Limerick on which I would like to have a wider debate. Obviously in terms of public safety no one accepts what is happening in Limerick but we all should work towards the success of the Limerick regeneration plan in particular. Everyone in public life should do so. We should debate the wider issue of trying to encourage greater public well-being in Limerick.

April 8th

Address by President of the European Parliament.

I welcome President PÃ¶ttering. In my role as Deputy Leader of the House and representing the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, I join in the welcome given to him by previous speakers and welcome several aspects of his speech. Senator Fitzgerald has raised the details of the position on climate change and energy security and I, too, welcome those aspects of the Presidentâ€™s speech. It is an important role that the European Parliament will be playing in years to come. The provision on climate change in the reform treaty was a recent initiative of the Irish Government. It is the main difference between this treaty and the constitutional treaty and accompanied my partyâ€™s participation in Government in this country. It is very welcome to see the European Parliament playing a role in advancing that important agenda. Indeed, it is the key agenda as the Union moves forward in years to come.

I wish to ask President PÃ¶ttering about ongoing concerns relating to the structures of the European Union. It is fair to say that several of the debates in this country that have accompanied the development and devolution of the Union, through the various referenda campaigns, have focused on concerns regarding a democratic deficit. The European Union is a union of democratic nations and is formed by particular values. The essence of democratic values is to have an ongoing, open and democratic debate. I would be pleased to hear President PÃ¶tteringâ€™s views on the importance of such critical engagement about what the Union is and what it is evolving into.

In Ireland, despite the existence of fora such as the Forum on Europe, the fact is very often lost that we need people to put forward arguments regarding whether the right direction is being followed. The upcoming debate in this country must be informed as much by critical voices as by those who are intimately involved in the structures of the European Union.

The essence of the democratic deficit is the involvement of the ordinary EU citizen. Each of the structures of the Union â€” the Parliament, Council and Commission â€” must demonstrate how the deficit exists now and how it can be lessened in the future. I am particularly keen to hear the views of the President of the European Parliament on that issue.

The President also mentioned the role Ireland plays as a donor nation and referred to our per capita contribution in terms of development aid. This is an area in which the European Union, collectively, plays an important role. Does the President believe strategies can be devised to prevent that from being undermined by some of the trade policies of the European Union? Is there a need to engage with developing countries in a better way? Senator Frances Fitzgerald has already mentioned that trade matters must be examined critically to determine how they might affect the interests of small and peripheral countries such as Ireland. I am interested in the Presidentâ€™s response in that regard.

I wish to ask President PÃ¶ttering about the foreign policy direction of the European Union. We have had two instances in the past ten years where European Union member countries have chosen to take different positions, despite the move towards a common foreign policy. I cite the example of the Iraq war in 2003 where member countries took independent positions and the EU did not adopt a collective position. We are seeing that again now in the recognition of Kosovo as a new country. While Ireland has made such a recognition, several member states are uncomfortable about doing so and, again, there is no common EU position. Does Mr. PÃ¶ttering, as President of the Parliament, see this as one of the reasons there probably will never be a fully common European foreign policy acceptable to all members and that there will always be incidents and issues of policy where member states will decide on a national interest basis what their individual foreign policy positions will be?