July 10th
Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2008: Report and Final Stages.
Senator Dan Boyle: I too join in the vote of thanks to the Minister of State and his officials for steering this legislation through the House. The time necessary to debate the issues today was made available and there was no attempt by the Government side, as is the tradition in the House, to bring about any other business that would have led to a guillotine on the Bill. I accept what has been said about the sequencing of the event, but as Senator O’Donovan said, we will return to legislation on other aspects of the issue in a short period. I am confident that many of the issues that have been raised on Committee and Report Stages on this legislation will be taken into account when that Bill comes before us.
I would like to apologise to the House for the confusion caused earlier. On account of a meeting of Dáil and Seanad representatives with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government I missed being in the House for some of the time I should have been here to address the issue of amendment No. 15 on Committee Stage and amendment No. 4 on Report Stage.
An Cathaoirleach: We will not discuss the content of the Bill.
Senator Dan Boyle: I wish to apologise for the fact that we had two unnecessary votes. The issue has been taken into account and that is the reason the motion was withdrawn.
Senator Rónán Mullen: The Government right wing did not know what the Government left wing was doing.
Senator Dan Boyle: Had I been available at the time, I would have been able to explain to the matter to the House. I offer my apologies for not being able to do so and for any subsequent unnecessary votes
July 9th
Private Members Business. - Energy Policy: Motion
Mirror image politics are evident in tonight’s motion and the Opposition’s amendment to it. For a Government to congratulate itself and for an Opposition to immediately condemn it does not help debate in general, whatever of the particular item for discussion. I will come to the issue of whether the Government has a right to congratulate itself but I must admit that the first two Opposition contributions were nowhere near as churlish as I had expected, given the tone of the amendment. The Opposition has recognised the scale of the problem, the existence of best practice and the need to adopt a better approach, though the amendment could have been better worded. As to whether the Government has a right to congratulate itself, it is slightly churlish not to recognise that there has been a substantial policy change and that developments are occurring on a regular basis. We must put these changes into place. Having put the initial policy positions in place, we have set in motion a framework that, if adopted, will see further initiatives followed and the potential that exists being realised in a few years.
We may be over-consumed by the question of renewable energy because there must first be a proper understanding. I heard the other contributors speak of public education and awareness programmes on the use of energy. On foot of the discussion on the economy that we have already had today, it is worth noting that Ireland is a very wasteful nation. We produce more energy than we need and while we may ask questions on how we source this energy there are harder questions we should ask and have answered on why energy is being produced to be used in wasteful ways. We all have a contribution to make to that debate in terms of electricity generation, distribution and use and the use of energy in transport and industry. Only part of the answer lies in awareness programmes and the onus is on the Government to create appropriate incentives. There has been an attempt to start this process through the greener homes schemes, the insulation scheme, which is still in pilot phase but will be rolled out to the rest of the country, and through other initiatives like the element in this year’s Finance Act that encourages industries to seek tax relief on energy saving equipment. We need to put this new type of thinking in place to encourage new behaviour throughout the country.
The substance of this motion relates to renewable energy and it will probably be repeated regularly this evening that Ireland is one of the most energy dependent countries in the world. Some 90% of our energy needs are met by imported fossil fuels and at this stage in the world’s history the very existence of those fuels has a determined and finite time frame. It is not a matter of using fossil fuels better; we must find and use different sources of energy.
Ireland has huge potential and if a legitimate political criticism can be made it is that we are facing up to this problem far too late and we need to catch up quickly. Ireland has a huge capacity to achieve the generation of electricity through wind but it meets only 5% of its energy needs through this source. Denmark, a country of a similar population and a smaller land mass, meets 25% of its needs this way. Because we were so late to join the field opportunities in research and development and the building and selling of technology are an economic cost we have paid. However, they can be an opportunity in future if we start getting our act together now and I believe policies are in place to make the most of this.
The resource that is the sea provides even greater potential in terms of renewable energy through tidal power and wave power. These are developing technologies. If Ireland masters them we can sell them to a wider world, as countries like Germany and Denmark did with wind technology and the equipment that accompanies it, such as wind turbines, in a way we did not in the past.
Things will not happen overnight but we should acknowledge the work being done in Strangford Lough by the ESB between the two jurisdictions of the Republic and Northern Ireland. Work is also being done by individual companies on the west coast of Ireland, particularly on wave energy. The technology of wave energy can operate on different levels. Portugal received a great deal of European Union assistance that Ireland missed out on and built on cliff faces large concrete edifices that are not particularly environmentally sensitive. Irish technology is concentrated on buoys that measure waves either as they hit them or as they move up and down with tidal power. This creates energy. A Cork-based company is testing in Galway Bay and has moved up from a quarter-sized to a full-sized model. The success of the full-sized model could lead to a buoy farm in the middle of the ocean and this, if successful, could meet at least half of our energy needs, as outlined in the current national energy plan. These are the types of opportunities Government energy policy is creating through incentives.
We need to tackle these problems on two levels. One relates to big-picture items such as the successful negotiation by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, of the ESB’s 20 year plan. This will see €22 billion invested in our electricity system and €11 billion invested in renewable energies and it is one of the successes of the new Government policies. It goes a long way towards validating the motion put down this evening.
It is more important to accept individual responsibility for the use and generation of electricity. The measures put in place, including incentive schemes and changes to the planning regulations will allow one to use solar panels, stand-alone wind turbines and geothermal technology readily without having to go through a fully-fledged planning process. This represents a Government initiative and a positive policy change. It justifies what is stated in the amendment.
If one wanted to make a legitimate political criticism, one would say it is not that there is nothing being done but that what is being done is not being done well enough. The problem remains that there are too few initiatives. To achieve what we need to achieve, we need to continue going down the road we are on and to expand the sector very quickly and broadly. I hope the debates on this issue will be in this context. Future energy requirements are such that whoever is in Government will not be able to govern effectively or meet the needs of citizens unless we secure energy independence, which is lacking at present and which we must work so hard to achieve.
Economic Policy: Statements.
All economies are cyclical. Although the nature of politics does not allow us to indulge too much in the theoretical and the philosophical, debates such as this allow us to talk about what we mean by economic wealth, what it consists of and how and when it is measured. The normal economic indicators are such that we measure economic growth in certain ways. We measure all economic activity, whether negative or positive, within certain timeframes. If we were to measure the economy since the turn of the year, it would not be seen in a particularly positive light. If we measured it in the last ten years, it would be seen as one of the best performing in the world, but if we conducted the same measurement to cover the time from the foundation of the State until the mid-1990s, say, it would certainly not be much to write home about. On these terms, we see in our own political history how the economy has ebbed and flowed and how the matter has been dealt with by successive Governments of different political affiliations.
The situation is far from ideal. It is serious and requires a particular approach. Whether it is the result of international or local indigenous factors is largely irrelevant. Any Government in office at such a time has a responsibility to do the right thing. While we have enjoyed a period of economic prosperity unparalleled in our history, it has now come to an end. Whether we have a sustainable economy for the future depends on whether we do things differently. The Opposition can talk about whether, as I argued myself as an Opposition spokesperson, we placed too much reliance on the construction sector during our last period of economic growth; whether we have a balanced economy, and the challenge that faces us in putting in place measures to ensure we have a balanced economy in the future and that it is sustainable and based on appropriate levels of education, investment and infrastructure, but I have no reason to believe the steps taken as of yesterday by the Government and the Minister for Finance and being taken on an ongoing basis are the correct ones.
We are facing into a world in which our neighbouring and competing economies are all experiencing the same problems. We are facing a post-oil economy. There are also indigenous factors such as our reliance on the construction industry. A crucial aspect which in better times was one of the biggest fillips for the economy is the degree of business and consumer confidence which, as of now, has dipped and is heading in the wrong direction. The business of the Government is to make sure such confidence levels can be restored because without such confidence the economy cannot recover.
There is also an onus on the Opposition to contribute to this process. It is not so much that it is engaged in its usual role in the normal business of democracy in pointing out the failings of the Government, but it must put itself in the role of an alternative Government at any given time. It must state what it would do differently and how it would do it. I realise Fine Gael has brought out a policy document in the last week, but it must go beyond this. The people have made decisions, particularly at the last general election, regardless of the situation, that if there was an alternative Government and if it were constituted differently, the same decisions would be made in the same way and we would find ourselves in exactly the same position. That is why there is a greater need to ensure the decisions made by the Minister for Finance and the Government are fundamentally correct. Otherwise we will be pointing ourselves in the wrong direction and frittering away much of what we have achieved as a nation in the last ten years.
On these grounds I commend the decisions made yesterday and invite everyone in the Chamber to contribute to that process in the most positive way possible.
Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2008: Second Stage.
It is only belatedly in political debate that a consensus has been reached in respect of the difficulties that alcohol causes to our society. We have tended to live on a national myth that alcohol is part of what we are and even to celebrate the fact it is so widely used and abused in our society. However, we have begun to perceive the social consequences of being so attached to such a mythology. While I enjoy alcohol and must admit there are occasions on which I take alcohol to excess-----
Senator Jerry Buttimer: Never.
Senator Dan Boyle: It has been known to happen.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: That is not the Green Party way.
Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): Senator Boyle, without interruption.
Deputy Michael P. Kitt: It is the Beamish way.
Senator Dan Boyle: As a parent, my responsibility now has passed into the twilight as my daughter has reached the age of 18. Despite my concern the drink culture has managed to worsen. When my generation began to drink and to frequent public houses and nightclubs, the idea was to consume as much alcohol as possible, but to do so in a way that showed one could sustain such use of alcohol. A new generation has arisen in which the purpose of alcohol consumption is to maximise alcohol intake and to become intoxicated in the quickest possible time. This frightens me. Such alcohol abuse can be linked with poly-drug use, whereby many young people take drugs, which of themselves are not addictive and if taken in isolation, may not have a short-term medical consequence. However, when they mix them together in a cocktail of pill-popping, smoking and drinking, it indicates a generation that has threatened itself medically in a manner like no previous generation. There is an onus on Members as parliamentarians to introduce legislation that identifies such risks and tries to codify the law appropriately.
The imposition of time limits for the consumption of alcohol is almost self-defeating because part of the culture in Ireland is for large groups of people to go out at 9.30 p.m. or 10 p.m. to consume large amounts of alcohol before the official closing time. In view of the way our licensing hours are structured, a large number of people, who have consumed large amounts of alcohol in a short period of time, come out into urban centres - it is becoming an increasing phenomenon in rural areas - and cause untold social difficulties. What we need is a licensing system that would measure and regulate that more effectively so that people, first, would have a more mature attitude to alcohol and, second, would consume alcohol at different times.
We have just come out of a European treaty referendum, but in terms of our use of alcohol we are far from European. The norm in mainland Europe is to encourage young people to partake of alcohol with meals at an early age and to consume alcohol in small quantities at various times during the day. In Ireland, we have lost sight of that. We have bought into a cultural myth that we must binge on alcohol. While we might not be as bad as our near neighbours in that regard, we have basked in a cultural reflection of our use of alcohol. If we have any intent to assert ourselves as a nation that has more pride about ourselves, it is an element of our culture we need to lose quickly.
This Bill is born out of the need to construct such a debate and laws along those lines. A valuable job of work has been done by the alcohol advisory group whose recommendations have been discussed in this House in the past.
I accept that elements of the legislation could be drafted in a more effective way, and that is something we need to look at in the context of how we measure our business in this House. I also believe that it is important for the main thrust of the Bill that its contents are brought into being as quickly as possible because the summer period is the time of maximum consumption of alcohol and where many of the social difficulties come about from this culture.
That said, I am conscious of some of the concerns about what is being proposed in this Bill. I already stated that a strict time limit may not be the best way to proceed and perhaps future legislation would deal with the idea of rolling closing times between establishments in a given area or having them changed in a round robin fashion so that people drink in different establishments at different times and come out on to the public streets at different times.
While there are bigger issues being discussed in this debate on which several amendments are being tabled, I welcome the fact that changes to the licensing of early drinking houses has not been included in the legislation. They are an historical artifact from what were known as docker exemptions, mainly in the urban centres, but because to the changed nature of work they have become a social outlet for shift workers such as those working in health care. As long as we do not extend the number of outlets, I believe we should maintain the licences as they are.
There is an anomaly that results from that. As many early drinking houses were given such licences, they were also given six-day rather than seven-day licences. The 2000 Act allowed an opportunity for six-day licensees to become seven-day licensees by paying an appropriate fee to the Revenue Commissioners. That was time specific and only lasted 12 months after the enactment of the Act. I am lead to believe that there are no more than half a dozen such licences left in the country. It would be in order to restore that section of the 2000 Act into this Act for a further 12-month period allowing for an increase in the fee to the Revenue Commissioners to reflect inflation in the meantime. I am hopeful that the Minister will be open to that. Senator Mark Daly has asked me to indicate that we will be tabling an amendment in that regard. If we rid ourselves of the anomaly of six-day houses and if we limit the number of early houses, the Bill will be doing effective work.
As someone who has been known, but only on occasion because of my sleeping habits, to frequent places late in the evening,-----
Senator John Carty: And early in the morning.
Acting Chairman: Senator Boyle does not have time to elaborate on that.
Senator Dan Boyle: -----I am not sure whether the more controversial aspect that has been heavily lobbied in this case can be dealt with at this stage of the legislation. However, I would reiterate my case, that the possible solution is the staggering of opening times and round robin use of those opening times in any local area. I hope consideration will be given to that.
Death of Member: Expressions of Sympathy.
Séamus Brennan began his public political life as a Member of the Seanad in 1997. It is somewhat ironic that one of his last functions as Minister was to attend a debate in this House. While he had yet to announce his intentions, there were murmurings about what he might decide to do with his political future. I used the opportunity to thank him personally for his involvement, little knowing that his contribution on that day would be as valedictory as it transpired.
I remember Séamus at a number of levels. He had a disarming charm about him. I am struck by a comment made in the other House by former Deputy Joe Higgins when compared the difficulty of dealing with another politician to playing handball against a haystack. To steal that analogy, if one was playing handball with Séamus, the ball would be returned as wool because it was his nature to accept a political argument, never to react to belligerence and never to seek to deny the right of others to make an argument. These were among his greatest political strengths.
Having died at such an early age having served such a long time in public life, Séamus Brennan’s political achievements will be marked in a number of ways. While he served with distinction in all the ministries he held, he will be remembered for specific achievements. As general secretary of the Fianna Fáil Party, he singularly changed the nature of political campaigning in the 1977 general election.
My recent experience with Séamus was as Opposition spokesperson in the Dáil when he was Minister for Social and Family Affairs. I found him to be co-operative and willing to listen to other arguments. More recently, when the Government was being formed and negotiations were under way on a programme for Government Séamus was always on hand to try to bring people together when voices were raised and tempers became more heated than they should have been.
(12 o’clock)
My most overriding memory of that process relates not so much to the sessions that took place in Government Buildings but to our appearance on “The Week in Politics†when, after five days, negotiations had broken down. I was in a television studio in Cork and Séamus was with the main panel in the studio in Dublin. The nature of the conversation we had over the nation’s airwaves clearly indicated that negotiations were resuming. Above all else, this sums up my memories of Séamus and his ability to work towards bringing matters to a conclusion and reaching a satisfactory agreement.
Séamus Brennan will be remembered in the ways I have described by those in his party, by his constituents and by me. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam dÃlis.
July 8th
Hospital Investigations.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, and thank her for taking this matter. I raise a set of circumstances to which I appreciate she will not be able to respond but which I hope she will pass on to the Department for further consideration.
I raise this matter as a result of the unfortunate death of a young woman in 2005 in Cork University Hospital. Her name was Catherine McCarthy, she was 42 years old and the mother of two young children. She presented at the hospital with an engorged stomach and was admitted to accident and emergency. As she had previously dealt with the hospital, she was referred to a consultant who was not on call at the time and as a result, she was not seen until the following day. Within a very short time - a day and a half - she was to lose her life due to a failure to properly diagnose her condition.
Her husband is a paramedic working at Cork University Hospital. Since her death, he has found it very difficult to get answers or to receive a satisfactory explanation of events as they unfolded. The first port of call would have been the hospital’s risk assessment unit. Risk assessment units are common in all hospitals and in the HSE. When an unexplained death occurs, we should ensure an independent body is involved in the investigation. The investigation was carried out by the hospital. Legal action was taken and there was a settlement following a High Court case.
Mr. McCarthy subsequently went back to the HSE, southern region, and some assistance was offered by the head of hospital services. The circumstances of the case were reviewed by a national HSE officer responsible for risk assessment. However, it was a review of the procedures of Cork University Hospital in investigating the circumstances. Neither the initial investigation nor the subsequent review by the individual working for the HSE has provided sufficient information or an explanation for Mr. McCarthy in regard to what happened. What happens in the event of a negligent death, which has since been admitted by the HSE?
Exploring one final avenue, Mr. McCarthy wrote to the newly established Health Information and Quality Authority. He received a response stating that HIQA did not deal with complaints of this type referred in this way. If not, why does it not do so? I would have thought the establishment of HIQA was to inspire public confidence so that when incidents of this type occur, cases would be responded to quickly, diligently and thoroughly. All of the existing processes have been used and none have been adequate. The final process does not seem to address the concerns at the heart of this case.
There are severe inadequacies in the processes used to account for negligent deaths and through which those affected by such events can seek adequate redress, in terms of information, and draw a line under events of this type. I do not expect the Minister of State to respond to the set of circumstances I have explained but perhaps she can outline whether there is confidence in existing procedures. I would not share that confidence, if it exists. I hope the set of circumstances I have outlined will be relayed to the Department so that a more detailed response can be given.
Housing Market Statements
I have been critical of housing policy in the past and derive no joy from saying that the Irish economy has been overly reliant on construction. This is more the case here than in similar economies. In future our economy must find a sustainable place for construction in economic activities. We continue to have difficulties that must be overcome in the short term, many of which have been outlined by Senator Quinn. We have a long local authority social housing list and there are many empty properties across the country. The ability of developers to initiate new developments has been compromised by a lack of capital that stems from an inability to sell the vacant properties already in their possession. For the same reason, financial institutions that provided capital to such developers are either unable or unwilling to give further impetus to allow developers initiate new projects.
On all these grounds, a possible answer to the social housing situation would be to use all these negatives to create a virtuous circle. We may need a special, tripartite convention on housing consisting of the Government, through local authorities, financial institutions and the Construction Industry Federation. This could help convert as many as possible of the existing vacant properties into social housing units. Agreement could be sought with the financial institutions that payment not be immediate but made on a deferred time basis. If we managed to do this we would remove a monkey, in the form of the financial institutions, from the backs of developers and we would offer financial institutions guaranteed payment at an agreed time, though not necessarily in the immediate future. We would also provide local authorities with the ability to speed up a social housing programme at a time of constrained public expenditure. The housing situation is such that an innovative approach is demanded; we cannot do things as they were traditionally done or as we allowed happen during the Celtic tiger years. We must knock heads together to ensure that the contradictions that exist in housing policy, as outlined by Senator Quinn, do not continue into the future.
Other opportunities also exist because of the lack of effective housing policies in the past. Some 50% of our housing stock was built no later than 1990 and most of this does not meet the type of building standards, especially in terms of energy efficiency, that we see in more enlightened countries with policies on housing energy ratings that are superior to ours. Through our new building regulations, we have put in place the first phase of a new Government policy that obliges new housing to reach a 40% standard. In two years it is intended that this will rise to a 60% standard. It will ultimately reach an 80% standard and the concept of passive housing will apply in a short amount of time.
This does not overcome the fact that much of the country’s housing stock comes nowhere close to the 40% standard. Much work must be done on this, through the provision of adequate resources. As has been argued, with the co-operation of the construction industry, a large-scale national insulation programme should be put in place that involves those who have experience in the industry. This programme would look at existing building stock and ensure that money that is being leaked, literally, by householders due to ever-rising energy costs can be saved. The country would benefit through less importation of fossil fuels and householders would benefit through greater control of daily and weekly expenditure. As a result, inflation should be curtailed.
These seem like simple solutions but, like all simple solutions, there is bound to be a fly in the ointment somewhere; a person in a Department is bound to say “we would like to do that, butâ€. However, with the situation as it is and resources as they are, it is not good enough to say that the way things were done in the past will improve things in the future. What was done in the past provided a short-term fillip but never a long-term answer; it was always going to be far from sustainable. Our housing policy must be turned on its head. As Senator Quinn said, we must provide the appropriate number, type and location of housing units. Historically, through the lifetime of this State, on all of these levels, we have failed. We have never planned effectively for the type of housing that was needed by people - housing that would conform with their lives.
This matter should be seen as a series of difficulties that we now have, in terms of the contradiction between a dearth of housing and a surplus of housing and the difficulties caused by the credit crunch for the construction industry. However, it should also be seen as a huge opportunity to put in place a housing policy that will sustain this country further into this century and meet the needs of its people.
We have lived under a number of difficult constraints and historically, due to our past as a colonised country, we have put a great value on land. We have achieved among the highest levels of house ownership in the world but this has seen families put aside much income towards the acquisition of property. Such an approach does not occur in other countries and I do not believe our future housing policy must be based on the idea of ownership. This would represent a huge cultural shift in our country. We have a very small private rental sector and it remains so due to a combination of a lack of appropriate incentives for people to provide appropriate property for rent and the lack of proper policing to encourage people who would like to rent to do so. If we get that balance right, we will be doing a great service towards tackling the ongoing problems associated with housing.
The third area concerns social housing, housing agencies and housing co-operatives. These comprise a very small sector of our housing market, yet they comprise the area that is most innovative in providing housing in the types of arenas I have described.
Will the Minister of State pay particular attention in his response to the issue of homelessness in light of the current economic climate? It comprises an important part of his brief. We should never lose sight of the fact that spending money on homelessness is never false economy and that cuts made in this area in the name of economy always represent false economy. The reasons people are homeless are many and complex and have as much to do with mental illness and substance abuse as they have with the economy itself. I appeal to the Minister of State, given the day that is in it, to make efforts, with the support of the Minister and the Department, to ensure spending in this area is protected.
Order of Business
Senator Jerry Buttimer: I note the Deputy Leader was very fast to defend the Government in respect of the economy this morning. How times have changed.
An Cathaoirleach: Has the Senator a question?
Senator Jerry Buttimer: I am supporting the amendment proposed to the Order of Business. Some 19,000 people-----
Senator Dan Boyle: Is the Senator asking me a question?
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Buttimer, on a question to the Deputy Leader.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: That was typical of the smart-aleck glib reply that got the Senator into Government.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should not use such language.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: This is typical of Senator Boyle. He is defending the Government on a matter about which he was complaining 18 months ago. He has not changed.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should ask a question.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: He is not listening to the people. As 19,000 additional people are affected today, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment must come before the House to discuss unemployment and the loss of our manufacturing base.
I rise primarily to ask the Deputy Leader to facilitate a debate on social work cover in Cork city and generally, in light of the report in today’s edition of the Irish Examiner that a 15 year old boy spent two nights in a Garda cell in Mallow and has been waiting for five days for social workers to visit him and his family. While that may be good enough for the Green Party’s Ireland, it is not good enough for the Ireland and Cork I represent. I ask for a debate in this regard. The Deputy Leader may make smart comments but I represent people in this House.
Senator Dan Boyle: The Senator should have some perspective.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: I represent people in this House-----
Senator Dan Boyle: And we do not.
Senator Cecilia Keaveney: Unlike the rest of us.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: -----and this is a serious matter.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should speak through the Chair to the Deputy Leader.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: I seek an urgent debate on the role of social workers and the provision of out-of-hours coverage at weekends. Life does not end at 4 p.m. on Friday only to restart at 9 a.m. on Monday. I commend the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors on raising the issue today. Answers are required from the Deputy Leader and the Government on the reason no out-of-hours coverage is available at weekends. This is another indication of recruitment freezes, cutbacks-----
Senator Paudie Coffey: Hear, hear.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: -----and of the Government being inhumane to people.
Senator Cecilia Keaveney: And of certain professions wanting to work from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. from Monday to Friday.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Buttimer, without interruption.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: It is an appalling vista for the Government that a young boy-----
Senator Cecilia Keaveney: It is a lack of vocationalism.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: I am concluding, Cathaoirleach.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Buttimer has made that point.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: It is appalling that a young boy was obliged to spend two nights in a Garda cell. Shame on the Government.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator’s point is made. I call Senator Cummins.
Senator Maurice Cummins: I join Senators Regan and Bacik in respect of the Intoxicating Liquor Bill. Although the Intoxicating Liquor Bill will complete its passage through the Dáil only tonight, its Second Stage debate in the Seanad will take place tomorrow. How much time will be made available to table amendments on Thursday? How much time will be available between Committee and Report Stages to allow amendments on Thursday?
Senator Cecilia Keaveney: The Bill is based on the commission’s recommendations.
Senator Maurice Cummins: The manner in which the business of the House is ordered for the week is deplorable. Although the Government is trying to rush through this legislation, its record on introducing legislation to either House has been deplorable in the past 12 months.
Senators: Hear, hear.
Senator Maurice Cummins: Although the number of Bills that have been put through this House is disgraceful, an attempt is being made to rush through the House the Intoxicating Liquor Bill in a couple of days. It requires more careful scrutiny. If one speaks of Seanad reform-----
Senator Frances Fitzgerald: Or Dáil reform.
Senator Maurice Cummins: -----that is no way to go about it. This House has met many times in the week after the Dáil has risen and there is no reason Members should not return next week to discuss this Bill properly.
Senators: Hear, hear.
Senator Cecilia Keaveney: Hear, hear. Let Members do so.
Senator Maurice Cummins: I ask the Deputy Leader to consider that course of action. It is unfair to staff, let alone Members, to introduce Committee and Report Stage amendments in the amount of time allowed. The staff are being asked to work overnight.
Senator Cecilia Keaveney: Is the Senator trying to delay its passage on behalf of the vintners?
Senator Maurice Cummins: A sitting next week should be considered as a matter of urgency if the Deputy Leader is serious about proper debate on Bills, of which few are passing through the House. If a proper debate is required, the Deputy Leader should be prepared to allow Members to return next week to discuss the Bill.
Senator Cecilia Keaveney: Were that to happen, it would scare the life out of the Senator.
Senator Ivor Callely: In recent years, great developments, as well as new services and supports have been put in place in the health service. I ask the Deputy Leader to arrange either clarification or a briefing document with regard to the co-operation and liaison that takes place on the discharge of older people from hospital to community care teams. While I have the height of admiration and respect for those working in this area, it has been brought to my attention that on occasion there appears to be a breakdown in respect of the discharge and the required supports and new services for those elderly people. I would be obliged if the Deputy Leader could get that information.
Senator Rónán Mullen: In light of the Cabinet’s meeting today to approve cuts in Government spending to save approximately €400 million, it would be timely that we would have an urgent debate on how in a time of crisis and cutbacks we would order our priorities.
On an international level, it is estimated by most informed commentators that the money promised at the Gleneagles summit by the G8 in 2003 - €50 billion to Africa and elsewhere by 2010 - will fall short by approximately €30 billion. This suggests that, internationally, there is great evidence of selfishness among the richer governments of the world. When it comes to making priorities, the poorest of the world’s poor are not top of the list.
Domestically, we also need to ask ourselves where will we make the Government cutbacks. Will we make them in such a way that the most vulnerable in our society suffer? Our colleague, Senator Mary White, in her report What We Can Do About Suicide in the New Ireland, makes the point today that there is a shortfall in the money made available to the National Office for Suicide Prevention. The estimated €3.5 million for this year falls short by approximately €2 million of what it was recommended it get a couple of years ago. The Abbey Theatre is getting ten times that amount - I do not grudge it that amount - but I worry about whether at a time like this the influential people will still get what they want and the most powerless and the most vulnerable will be the most easily excised from the list of priorities.
Senator Cecilia Keaveney: The arts were always excised from the priorities.
Senator Dan Boyle: On the amendment to the Order of Business proposed by Senator Fitzgerald to debate the economy, on which Senators Bacik, Doherty, Coffey, Buttimer and Mullen have also commented, we are having a debate on the economy tomorrow in the form of statements and it is not in order to offset the Order of Business to have a special debate today as well.
That said, many of us are waiting with anticipation for the announcement at 3.30 p.m. of the new spending allocations. Tomorrow’s statements will probably give the House a better opportunity of debating the matter. My understanding is that the choices being made by the Government will put emphasis on protecting the least vulnerable in society, to whom Senator Mullen referred, give consideration to keeping up spending on infrastructure and ensure that the spending allocations, particularly on capital spending, are readjusted according to new time lines for projects rather than imposing direct cuts in current services.
Senator Maurice Cummins: Closing hospital wards.
Senator Dan Boyle: We will wait and see what is proposed.
Senator Paudie Coffey: New time lines means postponement or cancellation.
Senator Dan Boyle: We are concerned here with a spending adjustment of €450 million out of a budget of €53 billion.
Senator Paudie Coffey: If they did not squander it, they would have it to spend.
Senator Dan Boyle: The actual spending in 2008 will be along the same lines as 2007.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: Senator Boyle is buying into the spin. He has learned well in 12 months.
An Cathaoirleach: The Deputy Leader without interruption.
Senator Dan Boyle: The situation in which the country finds itself, particularly in terms of public expenditure, is not the preferred course. However, the way to look to our future economic development is through reasoned debate rather than through constant belligerence.
Senator Paudie Coffey: They are all about that.
Senator Dan Boyle: This House deserves better than finger pointing and name calling.
Senator Maurice Cummins: They have been practising that for years.
Senator Paudie Coffey: They made their reputation on it.
Senator Pearse Doherty: Let us have a debate on unemployment today.
An Cathaoirleach: I will adjourn the House if Senators will not allow the Deputy Leader reply.
Senator Dan Boyle: It deserves better than a Greek chorus of constant sloganising. There are those in the House who are willing in such a debate and I look forward to tomorrow’s debate as an opportunity to consider how we progress in that area.
Senator Fitzgerald also asked about the Aarhus Convention, which is in the programme for Government. It is intended to implement it as quickly as possible. There are four consents outstanding that need to be changed to allow Ireland to comply with the convention. Three of those are within the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and one is within the Office of Public Works. As soon as those consents are changed Ireland will be in full compliance-----
Senator Maurice Cummins: It is the fault of Fianna Fáil.
Senator Dan Boyle: -----and an order will be signed to that effect, hopefully in the months to come.
Last Thursday Senator Fitzgerald asked about the position on the EU directive on environmental liability. This will be a part of the Environmental (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to be published in the Autumn.
Senator Fitzgerald also raised the matter of the newspaper report about Haulbowline Island, the consultant of the sub-contractor involved and threats made by the Government related to court cases being taken. It is my understanding that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government stated, in reference to the contractual dispute, that it did not want information given to the sub-contractor in the course of undertaking that contract to be made public. In the meantime the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has already made information available in the form of the 2005 report and has given a public undertaking that all information relating to the Hawlbowline site is, and will be, made available to the public. This includes information in the possession of previous Governments dating from 1995 and 2002. When all such information is available I wish to hear an explanation from those in Government at that time of why they sat on the problem.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Senator is passing the buck.
Senator Frances Fitzgerald: Will the officials still pursue-----
An Cathaoirleach: I call the Deputy Leader with out interruption, please.
Senator Frances Fitzgerald: Will the officials still pursue the contractor? The Senator is saying the Minister is doing one thing and his officials something else.
An Cathaoirleach: That is not a point of order.
Senator Dan Boyle: The question of information is not an issue of contention. All information will be made publically available.
Senator Frances Fitzgerald: Will he be pursued legally?
Senator Dan Boyle: This issue concerning the contract is separate. There is correspondence from the Chief State Solicitor about those who were asked to stop work and refused to do so. The work they were doing was causing an environment hazard. That is the nature of the dispute.
Senator Frances Fitzgerald: It is not about the information?
Senator Dan Boyle: The information will be made publicly available.
Senator Maurice Cummins: When?
Senator Dan Boyle: It has been made available already; the 2005 report was made available last week. This will be followed by the 2002 report.
Senator Maurice Cummins: There is more.
Senator Dan Boyle: It will also be followed by the 1995 report, which informed us of the sale of Irish Ispat, a company sold for €1 with no environmental responsibility whatsoever.
Senator Maurice Cummins: Come clean. Do not go back.
Senator Dan Boyle: The company was given a five year derogation from compliance with an integrated pollution licence. That is the type of information that will inform this debate in future.
Senator Quinn raised the matter of food shortages and spoke of the other side of the coin in that regard. He spoke of the developed world and the shocking statistic that 20% of the world’s population consume 80% of the food. It is important that we have a debate on this matter which should be informed by events at the G8 meeting this week. The Senator was joined by other Senators including Senator Hanafin and Senator Keaveney in requesting such a debate, which is worth having.
I have strong reservations about matters relating to the debate on GM food. Senator Hanafin raised the issue of genetically modified bio-fuel. The issue of bio-fuel are caught up with those of food shortages. There are people who seem to think we can continue to use the same amount of fuel to travel to the same extent and that we can simply replace the lack of oil with other substances such as bio-fuel. That mentality is creating food shortages elsewhere on the planet. Bio-fuel is a substitute, but not a replacement for the sources of fuel we use to travel. We need a wider debate on how, where and what we can grow and for what purposes.
There is also a need for a wider debate on GM food to consider how it contaminates other substances and the matter of GM food companies which hold onto patents, making it difficult to grow other foods in the future. There is a wider political and moral debate that needs to be held on those grounds. Such a debate is worth having and I am sure many in this House would be willing to participate.
Senator Prendergast and Senator Callely raised the issue of what is termed “bed-lockingâ€. I accept the term is offensive and perhaps we should use the term “over-hospitalisationâ€. This debate should include the need for step-down facilities and increased access to nursing homes.
Senator Nicky McFadden: It should also include home care packages.
Senator Dan Boyle: The debate should also include the matter of community care responses. There is no argument about this. I refer to a discussion that Professor Tom Keane held about the reform of the cancer services in British Columbia. He said that money taken from bed spaces there was put directly into other alternative approaches. A debate on this subject, held in that tone with such helpful suggestions would be useful and would help structure national policy in the future. I look forward to such a debate.
Senators Regan, Bacik and Cummins raised questions about the Intoxicating Liquor Bill. The debate surrounding this Bill has run since the publication of the advisory group report on alcohol.
Senator Maurice Cummins: I am speaking about in this House.
Senator Dan Boyle: We have had two special debates on alcohol in this House.
Senator Maurice Cummins: Alcohol is a different subject matter. It is not specific to the Intoxicating Liquor Bill.
Senator Nicky McFadden: They were not on the Bill.
An Cathaoirleach: The Acting Leader, without interruption.
Senator Maurice Cummins: On a point of order, what has been said is incorrect.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: It is not correct.
Senator Maurice Cummins: I raised the Intoxicating Liquor Bill and he has not referred to it.
An Cathaoirleach: It is not a point of order.
Senator Cecilia Keaveney: It is based on the recommendations of the advisory group.
Senator Ivana Bacik: On a point of order, committee stage amendments must be in at 11 a.m. tomorrow, before Second Stage even begins.
Senator Maurice Cummins: Yes.
Senator Ivana Bacik: There is no question but that it is being rushed.
Senator Dan Boyle: I spoke in the general sense but I will address that question. We have had general debates in this House about the recommendations of the policy group.
Senator Maurice Cummins: We are speaking about the procedural matters.
Senator Dan Boyle: If the Senator allows me finish, I will get to those points. The debate has been informed by those recommendations with regard to how the Bill is being taken both in the Dáil and in this House. From the Government’s perspective, there is a wish to pass the Bill before the summer so its effect can be immediate.
Senator Cecilia Keaveney: Hear, hear.
Senator Maurice Cummins: That is not a basis for good legislation.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: We can meet next week.
Senator Dan Boyle: When we begin consideration of the Bill tomorrow, I am sure the Leader of the House will listen to debate and decide if additional time is available this week. The House has made a fairly clear decision about the session finishing this week so I am not sure the leeway exists. I have taken on board the concerns expressed today and if there is an opportunity for readjustment tomorrow, the case can be made again. The concerns made today will be communicated.
Senator Maurice Cummins: We will certainly make them again tomorrow.
Senator Dan Boyle: Senator Bacik spoke about the Climate Protection Bill and the need for further debate. I am unsure whether she speaks directly about the Bill and its progression in its current form. I included in correspondence some of the concerns I have about waiting for the report of the Oireachtas Committee on Climate Change and decisions on the follow-up to Kyoto, which is expected from a major meeting in Copenhagen in 2009. It is still the Government’s preferred course to wait for international decisions to be made before we progress with legislation. The Government still feels it is important this legislation remains on the Order Paper so it can help inform whatever legislation follows.
Senator Coffey brought up the issue of driver licensing, outlining particular concerns. I will seek to make information available to him as to why driver test centres would communicate cancellations to people in that way and whether it affects statistics in the way described by the Senator.
Senator McFadden talked about head shops which exist in several urban centres across the country. My understanding is the materials sold there are subject to control by the Irish Medicines Board. Whereas they may be unconventional and have the type of effects described, questions must be asked in the first instance about the particular substances sold. If paraphernalia is being sold in these shops which can be used for other drug uses, I would consider it a more serious charge. If information can be supplied on that, the Minister should respond to queries of that nature and we will seek to have a debate on that.
The question of affordable housing may be more immediately answered in today’s debate and I am sure the Minister of State with responsibility for housing can speak on Government policy in this area.
Senator Doherty asked about the undocumented Irish and more or less answered his own question in the sense that it is an issue in the American presidential campaign. His concerns will be forwarded to the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs to see if the two candidates will be involved in an initiative in that regard.
The Senator also spoke about the gateway innovation fund and I am conscious that I said decisions were imminent. I was informed that the consultants making recommendations to the Government had made their report. The interim time which is about two months since has been about debate in the Government about how and when finalised decisions will be made and the public announcement will follow. I understand such an announcement is imminent and I am not led to believe the issues at hand are affected by today’s announcement. However, as I do not know the contents of the announcement, we must wait and see.
Senators Doherty and Keaveney referred to the announcement of ward closures. We need to discover to what extent these closures are additional to the usual ward closures in August or whether they are linked to a policy under which resources are allocated on a performance related basis. I will seek information on the matter from the Minister for Health and Children. I share the Senators’ concern about Letterkenny General Hospital, which does excellent work. My father passed away in that hospital.
Senator Buttimer, when he got around to putting a question, asked about social work cover in the Cork area. As someone who has worked in the community and youth work area, I share the Senator’s concern. The current approach to social work has resulted in poor service delivery across the country for several years. The problem is only partially related to resources and may be attributed to a culture within social services and the manner in which they are delivered. I would be pleased to facilitate a debate on social services in Cork or at national level.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: We need action.
Senator Dan Boyle: The Senator made useful points with which I agree.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: I am glad to hear it.
Senator Dan Boyle: I have covered all Senators’ contributions.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Frances Fitzgerald has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business: “That statements on the increase in the number on the live register be taken today.†Is the amendment being pressed?
Senator Frances Fitzgerald: Yes.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 14; NÃl, 22.
July 3rd
Chemicals Bill 2008 - Second Stage
I, too, welcome the Bill. It is particularly welcome that a European Union directive and regulation is being inserted in Irish law so quickly, which stems from Parliament decisions from 2006 and Council decisions from 2007. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case, particularly when the directives have had at least some degree of an environmental undertone to them.
While this Bill is being led through the House, as it was in the other House, by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, it obviously has environmental consequences. I am pleased that in terms of identifying the various agencies which are responsible and which must be consulted or from which agreement must be sought in the establishment of regulations, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Environmental Protection Agency are included.
It is fair to note that, in the past, we have had an ambivalence and indifference towards how chemicals were accounted for in our economy. First, we lacked a national database of the quantities of substances that existed and, second, there seemed to be no acceptable standards with regard to how and where chemicals were stored or what chemicals could be stored together. Thankfully, we are moving away from that and legislation of this type will provide public confidence that has been eroded by the lack of such standards in the past.
It is also interesting that we are taking Second Stage when there is obvious public disquiet on particular issues regarding the existence of hazardous substances. One of the effects of this Bill is to identify the by-products of chemical residues in everyday substances. The controversy in regard to Haulbowline, for example, has focused media attention on the existence in the waste stream of the substance chromium 6, which forms part of the plot of the film “Erin Brockovichâ€. Chromium 6 also comes from the well-used, everyday substance creosote, which is used on many items of furniture. To enable people to become more aware of the type of substances that are used in everyday life, how they are used and how they are eventually disposed of, legislation like this is an important step in the process.
Having a database of all available chemicals and how and where they are stored will help in terms of their ultimate disposal, with which, as a country, we are still struggling. The proof will be in the policing of legislation of this type. The fear is that to avoid regulation and being under the watchful eye of any State agency or Department, people will take shortcuts and will still tend to use chemicals in a dangerous way. I am encouraged by the fact the legislation is coming through these Houses so quickly in response to the European Union directives and regulations. There seems to be an intent that this legislation will be made to work and that resources will be provided to police its provisions.
As it is enabling legislation, I would make the simple request that the regulations as laid before the House are given every opportunity. This will be the choice of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and will be discussed on a regular basis. One thing we know about chemicals is that tolerance levels, or the amount of a chemical to which someone can be exposed over a period of time, are constantly being reassessed. Once regulations are made, I would hate it if they were kept in situ for prolonged periods.
We may need further legislation, perhaps through the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, that would ensure regulations issued on this basis are reviewed regularly. While 12 months may be too soon, to have a set of regulations that would be in place for five or ten years and not take account of changes in scientific information as regards safe exposure to chemicals is not likely to be responsible legislation.
Perhaps there could be a reporting mechanism on the condition of chemicals in the country at any given time. One thing we are learning from the current controversy regarding Haulbowline in particular and other legacy sites throughout the country is that the lack of knowledge provided in the past creates a fear in the present and a lack of confidence that would be sustained into the future. The Government, the representatives of the political system and the State agencies representing the legislation that is being passed in these Houses need to take a different approach with a view to restoring and maintaining public confidence in these areas. No one could deny such confidence is badly shattered and in need of being repaired.
I am encouraged that legislation of this type will be part of that process. The fact it has been commented on so positively in this House and is being treated in a consensual manner in the other House gives great hope. However, I would like to put on record those particular caveats. The making of the regulations will be crucial in terms of making sure members of the public have confidence in this legislation and that it is effective at the end of the day.
Order of Business
I join others in welcoming the release of Ms Ingrid Betancourt. I also support calls for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to consider issuing an invitation to Ms Betancourt to come to this House, bearing in mind her availability and ability to do so. As a former member of the Colombian Senate and a former Green Party presidential candidate in that country, her insight would help us to understand the ongoing difficulties in that country and the plight of the several hundred people who still remain in captivity, as has been mentioned by Senator Fitzgerald.
Senator Fitzgerald also referred to the National Cancer Registry statistics and the need for a debate on the transit of hazardous waste and the location of such materials in the country in general. The Cobh figures for the urban area were 40% above the national average, although the rural area was 25% below the national average. I welcome that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government indicated in the other House he will seek Cabinet approval for a baseline health survey to be conducted in the Cork Harbour area, which is the location of most of the hazardous industrial sites in the country. All factors must be taken into account.
One of the most disturbing statistics that emerged yesterday, apart from the environmental information, is that the town of Cobh has a deprivation index that rates nine out of ten in terms of how the cancer statistics are put together. In essence, as far as the National Cancer Registry is concerned, Cobh town is one of the most deprived areas in the country, which represents a challenge for all of the public representatives in that area.
The information that has come to light in recent days justifies the decision of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to ask contractors to remove themselves from the Haulbowline site. There are severe questions as to how such contractors were appointed and supervised. That hazardous waste was being removed in an unsafe manner would contribute to a debate that needs to be held in this House at the soonest possible opportunity.
July 2nd
Cancer Services: Motion.
Recently Professor Tom Keane, who has been appointed to implement the national cancer strategy, met the Green Party parliamentary party as part of his ongoing consultation around the country. I found him a very impressive individual. He has come, with his experience and background, from British Columbia. The benefit of that experience is meant to be directly applicable here. British Columbia is a region of Canada that has a population similar to the island of Ireland and it implemented a similar type of regional cancer strategy. Interestingly, it chose to have eight centres, although British Columbia is geographically many times size the island of Ireland. The geographical distances between those centres is far larger than that between any of the proposed centres here. Professor Keane made a few interesting points, the first being about the nature of reforming and changing a health service. Additional resources were made available in the cancer care services of British Columbia by altering the types of expenditure. The number of beds was reduced and rather than putting that saving back into the general fund, it was reallocated into diagnostic services, community care and after care services. We have not used this approach enough in reforming our own health services. Having someone like that in the Irish health service gave me great confidence that we might be heading along a direction we have not had an opportunity to go in the past.
Another point Professor Keane made, and this has not been communicated strongly enough, is that while we refer to the eight centres as “centres of excellenceâ€, he thinks that is not the most appropriate term. He is talking more about centres of specialist care in cancer treatment. Using the word “excellence†creates an expectation that wherever the centre is located has something super-duper, so to speak, and way in excess of anything available. In making that point he stressed that what does not seem to be getting across is that these centres will have the entire range of services that need to be available for cancer care, including all the diagnostic aids, continuing care, after care and surgery, which is the most important element of what will happen in the centres. That does not mean parts of those elements will not exist in the rest of the country. The surgery will take place solely in the eight designated centres but elements of the diagnostic, continuing and after care will continue to take place in the various parts of the country where they now happen. While much of the debate focuses on the eight centres, it continues to be a national strategy because all elements of cancer care will be provided somewhere, somehow in all parts of the country.
The implementation of this strategy is at the heart of the motion. Part of my family background is in the north west. My father was an islander from Donegal. He passed away of cancer eight years ago. He received all his treatment in Cork and was fortunate to do so. He had three incidents of cancer over a 20-year period and the incident that led to his passing away occurred while he was holidaying on the island. The manner of his passing indicated to me the degree to which there tends to be a regional imbalance in health care services. It is more difficult in a remote area such as an island. When my father passed away the island’s ambulance was not in operation. He was carried from one part of the island to another on the back of a trailer with hay and was taken off the island by the lifeboat. He was then transported 30 miles from Burtonport to Letterkenny General Hospital. Fortunately for him he was in a coma during all this but it somewhat lessened the dignity of his passing away and represented to me an illustration of the need to have high quality health services wherever we are on this island. This was eight years ago and things have improved; we have a better ambulance service. However finely tuned the health service is in dealing with areas of low population and remoteness, it will be difficult to provide a high level of service.
This is at the heart of the national cancer strategy. We have to ensure that wherever people live they get the treatment they need how and when they need it and that the questions of geography and dignity are properly addressed. A fair attempt is being made to do that. There is a lacuna in the north west. Not only is it a remote part of the country, the population of the area is smaller than in other regions. Those factors have to be assessed in deciding which locations are best. I would like to think the cancer strategy is being structured with a Letterkenny node and that the possibility of increased links between the health services in the Republic and the North of Ireland would offer opportunities, especially with Altnagelvin Hospital in Derry. This makes perfect sense in the context of a holistic approach to health care on the island. If there is a medium-term strategy that could put this in place, it will address the gap that remains because of the remoteness and the population size in that part of the country. Thought is being given to that. It is difficult to marry our health system with the National Health Service in Northern Ireland but we are talking about cross-Border bodies and wherever such synergies can be achieved, we should work towards doing so.
I have a personal reservation on the application of the eight centres from the current, more diverse approach to cancer care service distribution. In the south west, Cork has been identified as the regional centre and moves are taking place to move cancer care services from Tralee to Cork. There is a logic in that. Cork has been designated and Tralee is part of the south west region. I find it difficult to understand the logic of the fact that the Cork regional centre is to be located in one campus in Cork University Hospital, CUH. This means some services currently being provided to a very high standard in the South Infirmary-Victoria Hospital, which already seems to have a liaison with the construction of the BreastCheck facility which is located next to it, will be moved across the city to CUH. If someone can explain to me why that has to take place and in the given time span, it would make more sense to the people of Cork. I understand Cork is the regional centre but I am not necessarily convinced that means location in one building. This is just a localised example of how the cancer strategy is being implemented. I accept this will cause difficulties when the regional centres are being moved from A to B.
I appreciate the opportunity of supporting the Government amendment and of asking some of the questions. We all wish to see the best cancer treatment system in the country and it is our collective intention in this House to work towards that.
OECD Report on Integrated Public Service Reform: Statements.
The undertaking and publishing of an OECD report into public service reform is a very useful starting point for an important and necessary debate on the quality of Irish public service and the way forward. The report indicates that Irish public servants are persons of ability and commitment who, in the main, operate effectively. However, there are systemic faults within the public service that must be corrected. Such faults can be corrected only with an appropriate amount of political will and through what has been a highly effective social partnership system.
In addressing the issue of reform, we must deal with fundamental questions, one of which is whether the public service in Ireland is of an appropriate size. We do not have good templates surrounding us, given that the public sector in Northern Ireland accounts for 40% of the workforce, which is possibly an unreal comparison. An effective economy must have a proper balance between the private and public sectors, in the areas in which they are separate as well as the areas in which they interact. It is clear that we remain in a process of evolution in that regard.
Historically, the public sector represented a large proportion of our workforce, mainly because important infrastructural developments were not advanced by any bodies other than the State. There was an unwillingness, either through a lack of initiative or a reluctance to provide capital investment to bring about that initiative, in the private sector to do so. The early development of this State was largely brought about through an active public sector and a very inert private sector. That the Irish economy began to shed its agrarian past only in the 1960s meant we had a lot of catching up to do in terms of the lack of enterprise and entrepreneurialism in the Irish psyche.
That said, we still need an appropriate balance in terms of the numbers. I would accept that the number of people involved in the Irish public sector is probably too large but it is also the case that there are significant shortages in certain areas. We lack people of specialisms throughout the public service to provide the most effective performance. We must examine the areas where there is an over abundance of staff and consider retraining and redeploying them to fill in the gaps in the public service.
Political debate continues as to where we locate public servants and how we allow them to operate to ensure the public service operates to its maximum potential. I accept this is a legitimate debate but I do not intend to go into the issues in depth now. I will say, however, that the extent to which we do not hinder the public service by making unnecessary changes to location over short time periods and allow staff to focus on the job of work at hand, the more effective the public sector will be. Those criticisms are expressed clearly in the OECD report.
It would be to our benefit as a society and an economy if we managed to increase the level of interchangeability between the public and private sectors. The fact that many people spend all of their careers within the public sector and sometimes even within a narrow sector of the public service means we cannot use the full potential of such individuals, nor does it allow those individuals to be fully rounded in their ability to offer public service. There should be more people in the public service taking work experience breaks in the private sector, and vice versa. Given the criticism that some in the private sector make of the public service being an inherently bad thing, we might benefit from people from the private sector acting within the public service, thus getting a better sense of a model that is more about service to the public and less about profit making. That interchangeability does not exist in our system at present.
The OECD has indicated some fundamental reforms that must take place. In the current climate, in terms of the public resources available and how they will be allocated, a political debate might emerge regarding whether these are the best circumstances in which to implement many of the report’s recommendations but I would argue that it probably is the best time. However, it must be done with great sensitivity and in the sense of partnership that has characterised all of the social partnership deals to date. It also must be recognised that the aim of reform is to bring about a better service and it should not be just a number cutting or budget pruning exercise.
We are talking here about people who provide vital services in our society. Such people cannot and must not be discarded in any way. The reform process is about finding the best use for their talents and abilities in order to meet the needs of the public service. Perhaps marrying public service reform with some of the commitment that already exists to delivering public services throughout our society that are not even properly economically recognised — for example, some of the ideas of the task force on active citizenship — would yield a public service that would suit this country in the 21st century.
Nuclear Test Ban Bill 2006: Second Stage.
That this legislation is non-contentious in Irish politics has been alluded to in the debate. A responsible Opposition would not make a call for nuclear tests to occur in Ireland. In this respect, many Senators will be repetitive in welcoming the legislation.
Historically, the gestation period between United Nations agreements being reached and legislation being passed has been long. For example, the test ban treaty in question was adopted by the General Assembly in 1996, but we are only now implementing it in our Statute Book. It is more than “feel good†legislation. Our foreign policy record is a proud one in that the original nuclear non-proliferation treaty was primarily led by our then Minister for External Affairs, Mr. Frank Aiken. We should never lose sight of Ireland’s proud role in the debate.
While no political party or future governmental composition will take Ireland down a nuclear armaments road, the Bill and the test ban treaty in question adopt further measures. We live in an increasingly unsafe world where people who do not have national affiliations have access to a technology and the ability to act on it. For this and other reasons a test ban treaty and governing legislation is required.
Senators referred to the number of countries with access to nuclear armaments, some of which have yet to admit to such. Israel, which views itself as a regional policeman, particularly in respect of Iran’s ambitions, has never formally acknowledged that it is a nuclear power. However, we are certain that it is given that Mr. Mordechai Vanunu was imprisoned in Israel for revealing many of its nuclear technology secrets. It is unfortunate that an ostensibly democratic country experiencing regional strife has adopted this degree of subterfuge and abused its citizens by failing to acknowledge its use of nuclear technology.
Nuclear energy has been a cloak for the nuclear armaments industry. We should treat with cautioin the nuclear energy industry’s promotion of itself as the solution to global warming. Since the end of the Second World War, nuclear energy was never promoted as a cheaper form of energy; it was always there to refine and provide the raw material for nuclear armaments. It is no accident that those countries that have large-scale nuclear energy plants are the ones that have nuclear weapons. It is the reason there are justifiable concerns that the claim by countries such as Iran and North Korea they are producing a programme of nuclear energy technology is simply a cloak for nuclear armament ambitions. That is why a test ban of this type is especially important. It is especially true of Iran which can make no argument for promoting nuclear energy as a means of counteracting global warming or in meeting its own energy needs because it is a large-scale producer and exporter of oil.
The ambivalence and, it is fair to say, hypocrisy of the United States in regard to ratifying this treaty has been already noted but it should be re-stated. I was born in the United States, my parents having emigrated from this country. Many Americans are at odds with their government in this policy area. We debated this issue during the recent Cluster Munitions Bill. There is a trend to develop armaments, which spew from the general nuclear industry. The existence and use of the depleted uranium as a weapon of war is one of the more immoral aspects of modern warfare not covered by a Bill of this type but a definite by-product of the nuclear industry. We should use every opportunity such as the initiative of the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, which has been followed through by the current Minister, Deputy Martin, with the adoption of the cluster bomb treaty, to make similar arguments on the international stage about the use and morality of weapons of this type.
The biggest fear is the existence of nuclear weapons in countries that have less than stable governments and democracies — Pakistan is a natural case in point — or the development, sale and use of technology as an economic tool to, what are defined as, rogue elements. The CIA in a recent intelligence report to the US Congress said that it is not a question if but now a matter of when a dirty nuclear bomb will explode somewhere on the planet on the basis of rogue elements not associated with any particular affiliation. That is the dangerous world we live in today. It is important to have in place a treaty of this type. It is also important that we contribute to ensuring that it is policed effectively. As a country we have a proud history in this area and have made no attempt to engage in a nuclear armaments role. The most significant effect we make is to highlight the physical constraints that exist in terms of this technology.
The other argument made about nuclear energy and its possible saviour role in terms of global warming tends to forget that nuclear technology depends on a raw material that is finite. The use of uranium and plutonium cannot sustain the running of nuclear energy plants or the production and continued production of nuclear warheads. On those grounds, there will come a day when this becomes an obsolete technology. However, that does not address the problem that these armaments are incredibly dangerous.
There has only been one use of nuclear armaments in the history of mankind with the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those were atomic bombs which have been replaced by hydrogen bombs. The effect of the use of current armaments would be much more devastating than atomic bombs. It is possible to blow up the world by many factors of times that would accomplish that, which shows how ridiculous the arms race and the nuclear armaments element of that has become.
I wish to address our relations with the United States and the use of weapons. I was born in the United States and, despite largely disagreeing with its foreign policy, I still identify with it as a friendly nation. The United States has a policy in terms of its naval vessels, even when visiting on a cordial basis, of refusing to state whether they are carrying nuclear weapons or weapons of the type such as depleted uranium. It is a matter of courtesy in international relationships and in keeping with the spirit of legislation such as this, that we should require that all invitations for such future visits are contingent on none of those vessels and none of the people connected with them having been associated with nuclear weapons. Otherwise, we are introducing a degree of hypocrisy and turning a blind eye to policing and to what we seek to insert in this legislation. If we can get across the message in a friendly, cordial and diplomatic way that these are the standards we want to ensure are met, I would like to think that perhaps not the current US Administration but future Administrations would begin to understand that they way America sees the world is very different from the way countries such as Ireland see it in terms of the use of force and nuclear armaments in particular.
On those grounds, I welcome the Bill. I also welcome the contributions made by Members in support of it.
Order of Business
I support the approach advocated by Senator Alex White on whether the children’s rights issue should be dealt with by legislation or through a constitutional approach. The Oireachtas has established this committee which is due to report and all options are being considered. Nevertheless the views of the DPP form an important part of that process.
No. 1 is a motion on the Planning and Development (Amendment) Regulations 2008, which have been discussed in depth at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It largely relates to new procedures that allow small measures such as solar panels and wind turbines to be erected on domestic dwellings without going through the full planning process, which most people will welcome as a speeding-up mechanism in ensuring more renewable technologies are used.
Regarding the query on the Government position on waste management, the Minister has indicated that a review of international best practice will be completed by this month. That will be made public and will inform the debate. The programme for Government indicates that incineration is not a preferred waste option but mechanical and biological treatment are. The situation regarding the incinerator in Meath has gone through all existing processes but is being promoted by a company that says it wants an economic advantage over landfill for its operations. However the programme for Government is clear that such an economic advantage will not be offered, so that raised questions.
I had severe qualms about the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill when it was introduced in both Houses of the Oireachtas during the last Government but I have had experience of one of the first uses of it regarding an application by the Port of Cork company to relocate elsewhere in Cork Harbour. Having seen that turned down and public concerns addressed by An Bord Pleanála’s refusal, I am more at ease with the use of that legislation and how it is being applied. Nevertheless, we must monitor the situation and any attempt to foist unnecessary incineration due to the capacity that such operations would require to run will be strongly opposed by Government policy.
July 1st.
Situation in Zimbabwe: Statements
Senator Dan Boyle: Among the chorus of condemnation that will rightly follow from every contribution to this evening’s debate, none would be more eloquent than the contribution we heard on the Order of Business from Senator O’Toole.
Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.
Senator Dan Boyle: He was involved in a radio debate over the weekend with a person who along with his family was subsequently kidnapped and brutalised for daring to speak the truth about Zimbabwe. Unfortunately those who are clinging on to political power in that tragic country have been using every despicable means to do so. Not only have we heard of incidents such as that, but also newspapers over the weekend have shown pictures of a two year old child who had both legs broken in an act to intimidate the child’s parents. When a country sinks to those depths there is an onus on the rest of the world to respond.
There is confusion as to how the nature of that response. We have heard contributions from people like Archbishop Tutu, which we should take seriously. Part of the reason for President Robert Mugabe clinging to power has been a concern that an excessively aggressive attitude on behalf of the western world and especially those that had been colonising powers has always been treated negatively in Africa. President Mugabe and those with a loose attitude to democratic principles have used it to their advantage.
It is important for Zimbabwe to receive firm answers from other African countries. We should support bodies like the Pan-African Parliament, which did an excellent job in showing up the sham that was last week’s election, and other democratic governments in Africa. That continent, which thankfully is becoming more democratic, is being besmirched by the activities by President Mugabe and his thugs in his political party ZANU-PF. We must offer our practical support to the justly elected Zimbabwean Parliament, in which ZANU-PF no longer has a majority. As a result of the confusion caused by the continued assumption of power by President Mugabe I fear for the lives of those who participate in that Parliament if they are allowed to in act in any way as normal parliamentarians. Mr. Tsvangirai has already taken refuge in the Dutch Embassy in Harare. On foot of that every support should be given to parliamentarians who wish to bring about a normal civilised democratic Zimbabwe.
We need to ask why President Mugabe wants to hang on to power. What kind of country is he leading where the rate of inflation, if it can be measured at all, is of the order of 2,000,000% per annum? When a person has broken down his country to such an extent one would think the moral response would be to step away and let others who had the real interests of the country at heart to take their place. Once President Mugabe moves on, whether through natural causes or political changes, an enormous job of work will remain to make Zimbabwe a normal country. That is when countries like ours in the developed world should assist.
I echo what previous speakers have said. The Minister rightly said that our efforts need to be co-ordinated with the United Nations and the European Union. We are in a unique position. We have not been a colonising power. We have had a relationship with President Mugabe where we lionised him in earlier years. The tree he planted in the grounds of Ãras an Uachtaráin was mentioned. He made great play of having been educated by Irish religious. We need to ensure that the type of education he has suggested formed him and his attitude is not one that is recognised by this country or its people. If that message gets through, it might be the beginning of the end of Robert Mugabe and his reign of terror in Zimbabwe.
