Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

In Cavan, they are doing it all right, but the rest of the country has not come to it yet.

Much emphasis is placed on biomass and various other forms of energy generation. This is true but they are carbon neutral. They exude the carbon they have absorbed in the first place; that is all. There is an equal balance. I spent a good number of years on a committee that dealt with this subject and have a reasonable knowledge of it. Some of the statements I hear from time to time on dealing with this issue are totally wide of the mark. The truest method of achieving a balance is to use the ordinary block of wood, the unromantic block of wood that is cut and popped into the grate. There is only one process, namely, the one involving a saw. That is truly ecologically balanced in every sense of the word because there is no other industrial process involved. That is the secret. Many of the other processes have an industrial element. It can be a quite severe industrial process and contribute very considerably to carbon emissions.

Senator Aideen Hayden made a very valid point in regard to child care provision. Both partners in a household should not be forced into the workplace as a consequence of the economic situation. In other words, there should be some measure of choice for families. The reality is that we can spend all the money we like trying to intervene at different levels to correct a particular social deficit or injustice, but the outcome is not necessarily what we plan in all instances. This particular issue goes back to the individualisation of the taxation system and a host of other factors.

It is becoming common practice in recent times to have these discussions in a context where the argument is made that Parliament should be responsible for the allocation of funds. In fact, the Executive is where the executive decisions are taken. Nobody has ever gone forward on the basis of his or her allegiance to a committee. Nobody can seek election on the basis that if he or she is a member of a particular Oireachtas committee, he or she will do X, Y and Z. It does not work that way. Article 17 of the Constitution identifies the role of the Executive and the chief executive in the determination of how and where money is spent and the obligation to carry a message from the chief executive, who is the Taoiseach in this country and would be the Prime Minister in most other countries.

There has been growing support in recent years for the notion that politicians should not be the only people dealing with these types of issues. The view is that there should be some higher sanctum or organisation overseeing matters. That type of system is actually in place across Europe in so far as several jurisdictions have been operating a list system for many years. We do not have a list system because our system of proportional representation takes account of all the whims of the electorate in order of preference. It is the most scientific system internationally with the exception of the Australian system. We do not have to dig into it on a regular basis in order to re-turn the wheel. I have pointed out on many occasions that in many European countries, particularly in recent decades, a type of consensus politics has developed and we see essentially a single government dominating for up to 30 years. All that happens after an election is that one party opts out. It is like Lanigan's Ball, with one stepping out and another stepping in, but the result is a continuation of virtually the same regime. I have studied this at great length and am not trying to make a political point here. When there is no significant change in governance, people can get frustrated and start to wonder whether they should have a different system. However, it is not the system that is wrong; it is simply the fact that we have become accustomed to taking the easy way out and failing to address the issues that continue to present on a daily basis.

I was a member of the convention which drew up the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. There were many theories put forward by various participants in the course of our work . I was of the view, for example, that housing should be included as a right. I was told eventually by the powers that be - including people representing socialist-orientated governments, I should clarify - that it was not possible to do so because the availability of the required finance could become an issue. I tried to put forward a remedy to address that, but such a provision has not yet been accepted anywhere, so far as I am aware. Another issue that arose was the right to employment. I would have liked to see that included, but it was not possible to do so because of the financial or fiscal exigencies within which we had to work.

There is a general view now that the right to water is a fundamental human right. It is an emotive issue. I agree that access to water is a fundamental right, but the idea goes back to a time when people had to go to the river and take it out in a bucket. Fortunately, we have moved on from there and households now have access to water in a convenient and reliable way. The danger in this discussion is that the issues can become confused and clouded in a situation where we have alliances, some of which are in favour of a particular issue and some of which are opposed. Some groups have very good reasons for holding the views they do, even where one might disagree with them. The bottom line is that we must work within our capabilities and implement improvements where possible. Most of all, we must have regard to what is likely to happen in future, encompassing such considerations as climate change, housing issues, social issues and so on. If we do not do that, we are failing in the fundamental requirement to plan for the future.