Senator Coffey spoke to the Minister about what constituted good law. Good law is law that is not undermined by the creating of significant exemptions or exceptions. It is about applying the same standards to everybody and not allowing for self-regulation where it is not appropriate to do so. This legislation is informed by the principles of animal protection. It puts strong provisions in place to ensure dogs, in particular dogs bred in establishments, will be treated humanely. That is to be welcomed. Therefore, the Bill is very good law.

I am personally very happy to see the Bill introduced because in my constituency, as most people will be aware, there was a high profile case in June 2007 in which a puppy farm had been discovered in south Wicklow in which 76 dogs, many of them pups, had been kept in absolutely appalling conditions. Some 16 of the dogs had to be put down. The health problems found among the dogs rescued included flea and lice infestations, mange, cataracts, overgrown and diseased teeth, bone problems, ear infections, mites, mammary tumours, dietary problems and so on. The puppies had been housed in dreadful conditions with no access to food, water or light. The case was not an isolated one. I know of other incidents identified in recent years in counties Down and Carlow and elsewhere.

The breeding of dogs on the cheap is a grim and shameful industry. Obviously, the objective is to produce cheap, poor quality, pure bred dogs, mass produced by the hundred, usually in cages and kept in appalling conditions. One journalist referred to it as pet production, battery cage style, a very apt way to describe it. The intention is to sell on the dogs on pure bred designer puppies. In a business that is tax free these activities have made it an extremely lucrative industry that provides high profit margins for those involved in breeding dogs. It is estimated that pups are now being sold for approximately €400 and that up to 1,000 puppies a week are exported from the Republic. Unfortunately, most farmed puppies are sold over the counter in pet shops or through advertisements on websites or in newspapers, in which only the mobile number of the owner is given, with the result that the buyer never becomes aware of the appalling breeding conditions in which the puppy was produced.

There is a clear need for licensing and inspection measures to tackle cruelty on dog breeding farms, to bring proper policing measures to these establishments and to provide the necessary powers for the relevant authorities and agencies to ensure they can take action. This legislation is part of the process of bringing Irish animal health and welfare legislation into the 21st century. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, referred to other animal welfare legislation that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in the process of preparing. Major strides forward in animal health and welfare protection will be made when that legislation is introduced.

The Bill gives a legislative basis for the regulation of dog breeding establishments. As others have said, many dog breeding establishments throughout the country operate in an extremely responsible way, which must be recognised and acknowledged. These establishments have nothing to fear from the implementation of this legislation. I acknowledge that the Minister, Deputy Gormley, in drawing up legislation attempted to exempt certain organisations from any undue financial burden that might be presented to them, but this legislation is fair and provides an important legislative basis that will allow, as others have said, for subsequent regulations to be introduced in a number of key areas.

The legislation provides for an increase in the dog licence fee. This will go some way towards resourcing a system that is currently seriously under-resourced. It is proposed to increase the licence fee from €12.70 to €20. The Minister referred to the fact that An Post has increased its administrative fee to €3.50. This will leave only €9.20 per licence fee collected by local authorities to provide for the funding of the dog warden service. In 2008 the income derived from the dog licence fee for all local authorities was €2.6 million, while their combined expenditure on dog-related activities was €5.7 million, which left a shortfall of more than €3 million. Increasing the licence fee to €20 will increase to €4.1 million the income derived from the licence fee for local authorities, which will reduce the shortfall to only to €1.6 million, but there will still be a shortfall.

The legislation, to which the Minister did justice in his outline of it, introduces the need to register breeding establishments with the local authority. Existing dog breeding establishments will have three months from the commencement of the Act to register or otherwise they will be in breach of it. The legislation also requires minimum standards to be adhered to in such establishments. Within nine months of the commencement of the Act local authorities must arrange to carry out an inspection of registered establishments which, in the meantime, can continue to operate.

The legislation also requires the introduction of microchipping of all dogs, to which other speakers referred, commencing with those resident in dog breeding establishments. To enable the making of effective regulations in these areas, this legislation was required.

Some Members opposite referred to shortcomings in the consultation that occurred on the preparation of the legislation. I have no doubt the Minister’s response will make clear the extent of such consultation. In drawing up the Bill and regulations, I am aware that the Minister’s Department consulted the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the veterinary expertise available to local authorities through the City and County Managers’ Association. The draft guidelines the Minister supports are based on advice from the Irish Society for Protection of Cruelty to Animals. Others consulted included the Hunting Association of Ireland and Animals Need a Voice in Legislation or the ANVIL group. In addition, the working group that was set up received numerous submissions as part of its responsibility to prepare recommendations on the management of dog breeding establishments for the Minister.

I recommend this legislation to the House. It is long overdue but good legislation. This Bill provides a sound legislative basis for the regulations that need to be introduced in key areas. I draw the Minister’s attention to a submission I received from the Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in the past week or two comprising some last minute proposals it put forward to the final draft of the legislation. One proposal is a suggestion on the age at which dogs should be microchipped and another calls on the Minister to ensure that the guidelines on the operation of dog breeding establishments are put in place prior to or on the enactment of this Bill. The guidelines, to which the society referred, are on the duty of care to animals, including dogs and dog breeding establishments. I commend the passing of this legislation to the House.

I regret only 45 minutes has been provided for the debate on this motion. As the Minister of State is required to open and close the debate, this leaves little time for representatives of all political parties to make statements on this important body, the structure of which will have serious implications for internal security policy within the European Union. I believe 45 minutes is a short time within which we must discuss the establishment and remit of the committee.

Under protocol 21 of the Lisbon treaty, Ireland has discretion to opt-in, in so far as it sees fit, to the communitarian approach to justice and home affairs, which is to be welcomed. We have provided ourselves with much flexibility in this regard. I note the incoming Spanish Presidency has stated it will give priority to the development of internal security strategy which will come within the remit of the new committee. It is important that Ireland is from the outset a member of the new structure when the Spanish Presidency is developing policy in the area of internal security. We are told the main objective of COSI will be to facilitate, promote and strengthen co-ordination of the operational actions between EU member states in the field of internal security, including police and customs co-operation, external border protection and judicial co-operation in criminal matters relevant to operational co-operation in the field of internal security. We are told also that the committee will regularly report on its activities to the Council and shall keep the European and national parliaments informed.

COSI will be responsible for evaluating the general direction and efficiency of operational co-operation and will also have the responsibility of identifying possible shortcomings and adopting recommendations to address them. COSI, with the Political and Security Committee, will be mandated to assist the Council to implement the solidarity clause which provides that the EU shall be able to mobilise all the instruments at its disposal to help a member state that is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster, which is an important power. It is important that Ireland, because of its unique position as a neutral state within the European Union, ensures that the implementation of the solidarity clause is worked out in a manner that is acceptable to us and the values which underpin our neutrality.

I have a number of concerns to which I hope the Minister of State can respond. Several interested parties have raised with me the composition of COSI. Will the committee merely be advised by agencies such as security and intelligence agencies like Britain’s MI5? In other words, will these bodies be members of the committee or will the committee merely be advised by them? Perhaps the Minister of State will respond to that issue. On the European and national parliaments being kept informed of the proceedings of this committee, will the level of information provided to the parliaments make meaningful scrutiny possible? As far as I am aware no provisions have been set out in terms of scrutiny and accountability. Can the Minister of State assure us that there will be public access to its proceedings and documents? My third concern relates to the concept of internal security. Members will be aware that this concept is much wider than policing, judicial co-operation and immigration. It encompasses all matters relating to the maintenance of law and public order and to civil and military capabilities. Obviously there is concern in regard to the incredibly strong link that will be required between internal security within the EU and external security. Can the Minister of State offer any reassurances with regard to the definition of that concept and the remit of the committee as a result?

The Bill is timely because there is an increasing convergence between telecoms and broadcasting resulting in significant innovation in these premium rate services. There are subscription media services on mobile phones, interactive gaming on television and even entire television channels based on premium rate calling. There are also significant business applications for premium rate services. In Ireland we are all familiar with unique prefixes relating to the premium rate services: 1530, 1540, 1550, 1559, 1560, 1570 and 1580. The 1559 prefix is dedicated solely to adult services and can only be accessed with a PIN issued by a network operator. Calls to premium rate services cost more than ordinary telephone calls and each prefix has a specific call cost. The role of regulation is important. Others have referred to this. One of its important purposes is to prevent consumer harm, in particular to ensure clear and accurate pricing information is provided along with honest advertising and service content. This Bill will accomplish this by ensuring the new regulatory system includes those strong consumer provisions.

In earlier days it was much more common for premium numbers to be used fraudulently. Computer criminals have used premium rate numbers to defraud unsuspecting Internet users. As we know, many more children and young people are using the Internet, which makes them vulnerable to this type of fraud. One particular scheme involved encouraging users to download a programme known as a “dialler” which surreptitiously dialled a premium rate number, accumulating charges on the user’s phone bill without his or her knowledge. Another premium rate scam involved television programming that encouraged young children to dial a number, relying on the assumption that they would be unaware of the charges to be incurred.

In Ireland, premium rate telephone services have been regulated by Regtel, an independent non-profit company formed in 1995. It operates through a strict code of practice with which all service providers in Ireland must comply. Regtel has been required to assure consumer protection when using national or international premium rate services and has put in place procedures to deal with consumer complaints that arise from the use of these services.

The Bill provides for the transfer of the function of the regulation of premium rate services from Regtel to the Commission for Communications Regulation, ComReg. It also provides for certain other amendments to the overall communications framework. The transfer of the regulatory function to ComReg will ensure an effective regime that addresses the present market environment is established and this is in accordance with Government policy on agency rationalisation. The legislation enables ComReg to license the premium rate services by specifying the classes or types of premium rate services that require to be licensed, the terms and conditions that may be attached, and the information that premium rate service providers must provide to ComReg upon request. Significantly, it also deals with the issue of offences and penalties. The Bill provides the necessary investigative powers to ComReg to ensure the conditions of a licence are being complied with. ComReg will be empowered to revoke, amend or suspend a PRS licence with immediate effect, if necessary, where it finds that the holder has failed to comply with a licence condition. It also provides for summary and indictable offences relating to the provision of unlicensed premium rate services and summary offences for overcharging for services or charging for services not supplied. A service provider aggrieved by a decision of ComReg to refuse to grant or revoke, amend or suspend a PRS licence will have the right of appeal to the Circuit Court.

Significantly, too, the Bill provides that ComReg will, in consultation with the industry and other interested parties, prepare and publish a code of practice to be followed by premium rate service providers. Compliance with the code of practice will be a condition of the licence.

I have mentioned that the legislation makes some other changes to the communications infrastructure. Having been a member of a local authority, I particularly appreciate the fact that this Bill amends Part 5 of the principal Act of 2002 to facilitate the National Roads Authority in making ducting infrastructure on national roads and motorways available for fibre roll-out. This will facilitate the roll-out of fibre throughout the country to provide broadband connectivity, one of the priorities the Minister has emphasised his Department will pursue. This legislation will facilitate us in developing the communications infrastructure which will help achieve that objective. Under the principal Act, local authorities were the sole consent-giving authority for local, regional and national roads as well as motorways. This amendment in the legislation before the House designates the National Roads Authority as an authority for national roads, which includes motorways. This will enable the National Roads Authority to make available to network operators access to the ducting on national roads and motorways to facilitate the roll-out of high-speed fibre networks in the regions.

For all these reasons I commend the legislation and I commend the Minister on its introduction. I happily support the Bill.

I ask that we would invite the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Dick Roche, to address the House on the issue of the citizens’ initiative that has been introduced as part of the Lisbon treaty. The Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs, of which I am a member, discussed the issue this afternoon. A Green Paper has been issued by the Commission and all public submissions have to be made on that Green Paper by 31 January.

Members of the Seanad will find that people will approach them about this initiative and it is important, at this early stage, that we influence how it will work. Important questions arise, such as the number of member states from which the initiative should come, the number of signatories per member state, and how Ireland, as a small member state, has a vested interest in ensuring it is not discriminated against in terms of any such citizens’ initiative owing to our small population. There is also the issue of the minium age of signatories to the citizens’ initiative and the issues of transparency and funding around any campaign that surrounds such an initiative. These are important issues and I ask that the Minister of State would appear before the House to explain the Government’s position on the way in which the citizens’ initiative will roll out.

I have to hand it to the Green Party’s Government colleagues, Fianna Fáil, which has supported us in our efforts since we came into government. It agreed to sign up to the Green elements of the programme for Government even though the issues in question did not form a core part of its political agenda. Fianna Fáil is supporting the Green Party and making it possible for these important changes to occur. In the future, people will look back and say that the current Government introduced important changes, some of which I would like to mention. We have committed ourselves to a 3% annual reduction in carbon emissions. We have introduced carbon legislation to enshrine those emission reductions in law soon. A carbon budget is delivered by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government around the same time as the main budget. This shadow budget, in effect, makes clear the impact and implications of the main budget for our carbon performance. The carbon budget will assume greater importance as we tie ourselves into legally binding commitments at national, European and international levels. It will help us to keep track of how we are doing in relation to the targets we have set for ourselves.

The Government has changed the vehicle registration tax system so that it favours the purchase of environmentally friendly cars. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, has introduced building regulations to ensure new homes and buildings to be constructed in this country are much more energy efficient. That will lead to reductions in carbon emissions. By introducing the insulation grants, greener homes, home energy savings and warmer homes schemes, we have created new jobs at a time when many jobs in the construction sector have been lost. The media teased the Green Party for its focus on energy-efficient light bulbs, which is another example of a policy that will help Ireland to meet the targets to which it has signed up and legislatively tied itself into. Our planning legislation is being improved. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, has introduced the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009 to ensure there is much more consistency between what we say we are doing at national level and the local planning decisions of local councillors, for example on the rezoning of lands. We are continuing to prioritise public transport. The transport sector contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. Public transport is much more energy-efficient and much cleaner. We are prioritising public transport. All of these things are important.

If Ireland wants to enjoy what is known as first mover advantage, it should willingly continue to make the essential and necessary changes to which the international community will sign up over the next decade or so. We need to develop a strong, clean and green economy in this country. We should use our membership of the EU to influence the kind of legislation that is emerging from the Commission. That will put us in a favourable position to benefit from the many economic opportunities that will arise in the years to come and give us a head start on others. Initiatives like the services directive, which will be fully implemented at EU level later this month, will allow Irish companies that are to the fore and have developed their ideas to provide services freely throughout the Union and to enjoy great commercial and business opportunities.

I am very happy we have had a chance to speak about climate change. I hope the commitment of Senators to tackling climate change will be followed through when the time comes to adopt policies. The decisions we will have to make about policy changes may be controversial in the short term, but in the longer term they will position Ireland well in the context of the green economy.

It is unfortunate that my colleague, the Minister of Sate, Deputy Sargent, has left the Chamber, because I wanted to pay him tribute. His tenure as the Minister of State with responsibility for food and horticulture in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been important and timely. It is clear that, in terms of agriculture generally and in the agrifood sector, we need a new vision of how to adapt agriculture to face new and serious challenges. We need new thinking. Some of us are stuck on the same treadmill. I listened to the calls by some Senators. On the one hand, they tell us not to do anything about climate change, such as implementing a carbon tax, and, on the other hand, they ask the Government to stop the flooding and recognise the latter’s appalling impact on farmers and so on. We must realise that we need to tackle the root causes of these problems. We cannot continue to throw money away in an attempt to convince ourselves that the old model of farming can continue and that we will somehow get over everything. We need to introduce new thinking into the sector, which I would argue has been achieved by my colleague, the Minister of State. In the little over two years that he has spent in the Department, he has put in place and is in the process of putting in place new structures, schemes and so on to encourage the agricultural sector to make the transition to a more sustainable model of farming, which will be essential. He has committed himself publicly and in the programme for Government to the growth and development of the organics sector.

Many of the mainstream political parties still view organic agriculture as being a niche area, an add-on to conventional farming. Much of the major international research highlights the fact that it is a central and growing area of food production and consumption across the world. A food island like Ireland could exploit many commercial opportunities, giving it a head start in developing itself as a location committed to organic farming. In the programme for Government, which was agreed a little over two years ago, we set a target of converting a minimum of 5% of acreage to organic farmland by 2012. I am happy to say that, despite many of the challenges facing the new sector, we have converted approximately 1.25% of farmland to organic and the rate of interest being expressed by those signing up to the main organic farming scheme is encouraging. There is every reason to believe that, by the end of the Government’s term, we will have reached what was an ambitious target for a new sector.

The organic food production and processing sector is one of the few areas showing steady growth in Ireland and in the countries to which we send most of our conventional produce. Ireland is uniquely suited to organic farming, as we are a food producing island and have a famous clean, green image. The European public in particular has grown concerned about the impact of intensive farming on biodiversity and the environment. At the same time, farmers’ incomes are coming under pressure from cheap imports. Farmers are also under relentless pressure from retail multiples to accept less for their produce. This is an issue we must address. There is an increase in the concentration of power in the hands of a few large supermarket chains. It is not peculiar to Ireland; it is an international phenomenon which has fundamentally changed the balance of market negotiating power in the food chain. It is a factor, although not the only one, contributing to the declining share of prices received by farmers.

The Minister of State is very clear that competition alone cannot act as the sole mechanism to maintain efficient markets. The careful and sensitive use of market management measures can help to maintain balance in the market, where appropriate. The use of such mechanisms can assist in the provision of fair returns for producers. The Minister of State believes there is a need at EU level to give urgent thought to ensuring markets function well and unfair practices are prevented. Because the agrifood industry is hugely important to Ireland and the European Union, the Union must safeguard its production base to meet future demand for food, feed and bioenergy. Retailers must strike a reasonable balance between granting value for customers and giving it to suppliers and producers. A balance between all stakeholders, including suppliers, producers, retailers and consumers, may be difficult to achieve but the Minister of State and the Government are committed to working towards achieving these mechanisms at EU level.

As intensive conventional farming becomes less profitable and farmers look for alternative ways to make their enterprises pay, they must consider alternatives such as organic farming. They also need to look at conventional outlets because of the pressure exerted by the larger retail multiples. They will have to look at alternative channels, including selling their produce directly to consumers in farmers’ markets and farm shops and through co-operatives and distribution systems independent of supermarket control. In addition, farming must become more diversified, producing more varieties of food but also fuel, building and clothing materials. I refer to the fledgling hemp industry which appears to hold out great promise for farmers. Hemp is an extremely versatile material that can be used in food products, building and clothing materials and so on. Teagasc has done a certain amount of research in this regard. It is innovative and a move we should consider more closely and support.

I again pay tribute to the Minister of State for the work he has done in many areas. He has supported farmers’ markets and helped to ensure local authorities support and provide the facilities such markets need. He mentioned the growth in demand for organic food. The Irish organic retail market was estimated to be worth €104 million in 2008, compared to €66 million in 2006 and €38 million in 2003. There was annual growth of 40% in 2007 and 2008 which compares very favourably with the figures for previous years.

There are several issues I would like to discuss, one being the threat to organic agriculture posed by genetic modification and GMOs. However, I do not have time to go into that matter in great detail, suffice it to say the Minister of State has introduced a voluntary labelling scheme. I agree with Senator Phelan that country of origin labelling is important. The Minister of State has championed this issue at EU level within the Council of Ministers, as well as at national level. It is very important that people know where their produce originates. When the pigmeat crisis happened, the issue of provenance became very important. The Minister of State intends to continue to lobby at EU level to ensure country of origin labelling is introduced but among EU member states we are supposed only by Italy.

I, again, welcome the attempts made to promote organic produce by the Minister of State. We must look in a new way at how we can make farming livelihoods more sustainable. In this regard, it appears the organic sector holds great potential for farmers.

We are limiting the amendment we are proposing to a very clear focus, namely, that section 59(b) of the Mental Health Act 2001 which relates to the involuntary use of electroconvulsive therapy be deleted. What we are proposing will not interfere with the voluntary use of this treatment. Electroconvulsive therapy is a controversial treatment. The website of the Royal College of Psychiatrists attests to this fact and states the benefits of the treatment are as yet unproven. Electroconvulsive therapy involves the forcible administration of an electric shock to patients who are extremely mentally unwell. The protocols set out under the Mental Health Act 2001 require that an anaesthetic and a muscle relaxant be used as part of the administration of the procedure.

There is widespread disagreement among psychiatrists in respect of this therapy and some of them refuse to administer it. There is great variation, on a regional basis, in the use of electroconvulsive therapy in Ireland. The therapy is so controversial because the long-term impacts are extremely serious. The impacts that have been reported by those who have undergone the procedure include emotional blunting, serious loss of memory, other cognitive impairments and a sense of a gross violation of their physical integrity. The World Health Organization, WHO, is opposed to the involuntary use of electroconvulsive therapy, particularly on those under 18 years of age.

Mental health difficulties and serious mental illness present a real challenge to society. We are moving in the direction of using more humane and multidimensional treatments. When one considers the history of psychiatry, one becomes aware that many barbaric practices which completely violated individuals’ rights were used. We are moving slowly towards the use of more humane treatments.

The Bill proposes something from which future generations of mental health patients will benefit. A certain amount of courage will be required in accepting the Bill. There is a great deal of concern and ignorance among members of the general population and legislators with regard to whether what is proposed would amount to good practice. I argue, on the basis of the research carried out by the Green Party, that it does amount to good practice. I call on the members of other parties to support the Bill which will lead to the deletion of the sections of the Mental Health Act 2001 relating to the involuntary use of electroconvulsive therapy being deleted.

I listened with interest to the debate today. Senators have spoken movingly about the distress of constituents throughout the country. It is right and proper that we use our positions to do that. However, there is something fundamentally unsatisfactory about the fact that at national level, all the political parties are saying the right things about flooding - how dreadful it is, asking how it happened and saying more must done through the provision of emergency funding and so forth - but at local level on the part of all the political parties there is very irresponsible zoning of flood risk areas and flood plains. Even as we speak decisions are probably being made in which people are convincing themselves that it will not make a difference or that they can zone an area if they put in certain measures as well.

It must be recognised that we are in a new era in terms of climate change. We will continue to experience the type of high and extreme levels of precipitation we have seen over recent years. Our drainage systems will be under extraordinary pressure and the type of flooding we are experiencing at present will happen again. Hopefully, we will be able to mitigate and reduce the drastic impact of that flooding, but it will happen more regularly. What we once considered to be once in 100 years storms will become once in 50 years, once in 20 years or once in ten years storms. We must do everything we can, particularly in the way we plan our communities in future, to ensure we do not worsen the situation or create an environment where people are left in the conditions we have seen through the excellent coverage by the national broadcaster. Through that coverage one is almost with the people in their kitchens, walking around with them knee high in flood waters and empathising fully with them.

One of the worst things that can happen to anybody is to have their home and belongings subject to flooding. It has an effect not just at the time of the flooding but in the weeks and months afterwards when the clean-up is taking place and one must go through the awful business of trying to find out if the insurance company is prepared to provide funding for the work required to restore the property and replace the belongings that have been damaged. We have heard many stories of insurance companies that are refusing to provide insurance to homeowners who have claimed once as a result of flooding of their property.

As people who are involved in making critical planning decisions, we cannot continue to allow this to happen. At this time when we are discussing the issue of zoning, all political parties should pledge to ensure that what they say at national level will be implemented and complied with by their councillors at local level. If they do not, they will be guilty of extreme hypocrisy. There is little good when the damage is done asking the Government to provide funds to mitigate or try to remedy some of that damage because at that stage the expense is huge. People are already trying to calculate the economic damage that has been done throughout the country as a result of flooding. Every political party must resolve that the message will go to local councillors that the flood guidelines the Minister, Deputy Gormley, is due to introduce in the near future must be adhered to.

This country must also examine the issue of the accountability we will seek if people continue to zone and make planning decisions in irresponsible ways. Recently we have seen in the banking sector how people behaved in a very reckless way and appear to date to have suffered few consequences for that behaviour, even though the livelihoods of many people have been destroyed. We must examine the planning process and if people are ignoring recommendations of planners and flood management guidelines, proceeding to zone flood plains and grant planning permission in areas that are susceptible to flooding or are recognised as flood plains, there should be some serious penalty and the people who are making those critical decisions should be held responsible. We must make this a serious issue and make the consequences clear so we can persuade councillors in future to be mindful of this when making planning decisions.

With regard to what can be done, I agree with Senator Norris’s remarks about water management. There must be better water management systems. The water framework directive is a very good policy framework for improving our water management systems. The policy is based on national river basins and catchment areas. We must ensure local authorities are working together well so they do not view this matter in terms of artificial local authority areas, but as the natural catchment areas and basins of our rivers. We need to identify flood risk and flood prone areas and flood plains in our county and local area development plans. We need to ensure full implementation of the national guidelines that will be introduced soon by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley.

We must ask local authorities to audit their drainage systems and set out clear plans over the next year or two to improve them. The Government must ensure flood protection measures in high-risk areas are implemented and that funding is providing. We will not have enough funding to implement them everywhere, but we are all aware of certain high-risk areas, including Clonmel where flood protection measures are not completed but are in progress, Bray and other areas that are regularly subjected to serious flooding.

We need to consider the issue of reservoirs and hydroelectric power stations to ensure the types of problem experienced in the past week or so do not recur. We must increase their capacities to take account of the fact that flooding will be a more regular occurrence.

Because I am not familiar with this area, I looked at the annual report of the Courts Service where I found that the functions of the service are wide ranging and important. It manages the courts, supports the Judiciary, provides services to court users, provides and maintains court buildings and provides information on the courts to the public. It is important that the service is working effectively and efficiently. However, as others have mentioned, we are facing difficult times with regard to our public finances, and the Courts Service will need to conduct its services with less money. We must try to ensure that whatever changes take place do not have a negative impact on the front-line services, particularly customer and courtroom services.

I welcome the Bill. While it is largely technical in nature, it will introduce much more efficient operational procedures into the Courts Service which will be put into effect at the new Criminal Courts of Justice when it is opened, although the date for that is still up in the air. It will streamline procedures for custody arrangements, prevent the duplication of duties by the Garda Síochána and free gardaí for operational duties.

The Bill alters some of the structures that were put in place by earlier courts legislation so that the service can prepare for the move to the Criminal Courts of Justice complex near the Phoenix Park. This will be quite an impressive facility with 450 rooms, 22 courtrooms and ancillary facilities, and vastly improved facilities generally for both staff and the Judiciary. It will enable the courts staff to operate in a single administrative office in support of all the courts, of which there are 22, including the Central Criminal Court, the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Special Criminal Court, the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court and the Dublin District Court. These will all be located in the new facility. This will allow for improved flexibility in staff arrangements, which will be important in years to come.

The Bill hopes to achieve administrative efficiencies by consolidating the court offices on a thematic, that is, criminal, basis. The District Court deals with approximately 450,000 cases per year while the Supreme Court deals with fewer than 500. Section 15 will allow the criminal aspects of the High Court office to be relocated to the Phoenix Park office while retaining a civilian jurisdiction in the existing office in the Four Courts. The Bill also requires that the head of each office, the senior sitting judge, be consulted before any such consolidated office can be established. Section 17 also allows for the administrative business of the Special Criminal Court to be dealt with by a nominated court office.

The remainder of Part 3 combines the court offices into the existing legislative structures. Essentially, the sections clarify that all previous references to a court office should be read in future as including a reference to the new combined office. Section 23 provides that there be no disruption to court business or filing of documents where court offices are being reconfigured and jurisdiction is being transferred. This is important to avoid the kind of upheaval that can sometimes occur when there is a reconfiguration of services.

Some of the other technical changes made by the Bill, as others have mentioned, are in the area of bail recognisance. I was obliged to educate myself about bail recognisance which is an obligation or bond made before a court for a person to perform some act, for example, to appear before a court or ensure the attendance of an accused person at a trial. Take AA

The various courts have slightly different rules as to who can enter a recognisance. A bond or recognisance does not always have to be entered by an individual. Where it is required from a person, the judge may accept an instrument executed by a solvent person, corporation or insurance company. In the context of bail, recognisance will be estreated, that is, forfeited on foot of a special procedure in circumstances where the person fails to appear and a warrant for arrest is issued or the person is brought before the court and the court is satisfied that he or she has contravened the terms of the recognisance.

Under the Criminal Procedure Act 1967, recognisances may be taken by a District Court judge, a District Court clerk, a peace commissioner, the governor of a prison or a prison officer designated by a prison governor. The Act provided the District Court with the options of either requiring the accused to enter a judicially determined recognisance into court or of refusing bail and remanding him or her into custody. Section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007 allowed the District Court judge a third option of a non-monetary recognisance, in recognition of the circumstances faced by many people in this situation. However, the wording of the Act gave rise to the potential interpretation that only a District Court judge could take a non-monetary recognisance. An amendment in this Bill allows for District Court clerks to receive this form of recognisance where the court has admitted a person to bail as part of being remanded or sent for trial or sentence. Effectively, it allows for the administrative act of taking a non-monetary recognisance to be undertaken by a District Court clerk rather than a judge.

The Bill also provides for changes in the area of temporary custody. There has been a gradual shift from employing gardaí for escort duties and transfers of prisoners for court appearances are now largely carried out by the Prison Service escort corps, which is based in Cloverhill Prison in west Dublin and has a staff of 156 and a fleet of 52 vehicles. However, occasions arise when gardaí have to resume escort duties. Part 2 of the Bill aims both to resolve these jurisdictional issues and reduce the resource burden of escorting prisoners to and from prisons in advance of the completion of the Central Criminal Court complex by allowing custody facilities to be managed by the Prison Service. While the default position is that prisoners will remain under the jurisdiction and physical control of the Prison Service officers on their way to and from court appearances, section 6 of the Bill provides that a prisoner may lawfully be placed temporarily under the control of a garda or a prison governor in a court house or place adjacent to a court house.

Section 11 of the Bill provides that the holding area officer may use such force as is necessary to carry out his or her duties in respect of temporary custody. Section 11(2) provides that the series of rules dealing with all aspects of prison regulation will only apply so in so far as they deal with the regulation of searches conducted in the temporary holding facility. Section 12 also provides that the Minister may make regulations on the standard and procedures relating to the orderly management of any place in which a person is held. I share Senator Bacik’s concerns about this section and ask for clarification on it. If it is intended to introduce safeguards for prisoners who have not yet been prosecuted of found guilty or who may be appearing as a witness, it is important that we provide proper safeguards for their treatment while in temporary custody. Otherwise, I welcome this technical but important Bill, which will achieve greater efficiencies and cost savings in the Courts Service.

I suggest that anybody in this House, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Taoiseach do their best as this is a critical time, with no decision having yet been made. The position seems to be very fluid and different names are being mentioned every couple of days. The former Taoiseach has experience from the position he held in Washington DC and as a member of the presidium which formulated the convention on the future of Europe. For all these reasons he is particularly well qualified to be considered for the position.

As we discuss our economic future in the Chamber this morning, having an Irish person in that position as first President of the European Council would be a good sign for Ireland. It would show our influence at the highest reaches of the European institutions. I suggest that the Leader asks the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Taoiseach and Deputy Kenny within the EPP to use their good offices to promote in the time remaining the candidacy of John Bruton.

The Eurobarometer results this morning from a survey after the Lisbon treaty referendum indicate that Irish people have once again displayed swing behaviour in their attitudes to the European Union. The results of the Eurobarometer survey suggest there was a last-minute swing towards supporting the Lisbon treaty, and people’s concerns about the Irish economy seem to have fed into their willingness to support the treaty. There is a fundamental ambivalence about the direction of the European Union and pace of integration and the results of the Eurobarometer survey show this. We must help Irish people connect to a much greater extent with the European project and for that reason, the conversations we are having about our own reform mean we must look to a greater extent at covering European issues.

I support the call made by a previous speaker for the Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to appear before the House. I ask that he address the concerns that the equality agenda is being undermined by budgetary cutbacks. Tomorrow morning, the Joint Committee on European Affairs, of which I am a member, will be addressed by a group which is lodging a complaint to the European Commission in this regard. Perhaps the Minister will outline for us the strategies he can implement to protect this country’s equality and human rights so we do not emerge from the recession with a weakened infrastructure.