David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I compliment my colleague and friend Senator Crown on his gloriously mixed metaphor. It was a remarkable stylistic achievement but we all agree with the Senator. He has such an impish sense of fun, which I believe is also shared by the Minister.

This amendment seems to be in concert with the Minister's ambition. Sunset clauses are not unknown in legislation. They serve a useful purpose in sharpening the focus of those involved. Where it is the clear intention of the Government to wind down the HSE, nothing concentrates the mind better than a death sentence. This is basically what pertains in this instance. The HSE has not worked and has been a great disappointment. I am sure there are staff within it who have worked very hard but there has been far too much managerial fat. We will all be very happy to see a clear limit placed on the organisation's existence.

The period of three years offers plenty of time for the organisation to be wound down efficiently. It is not a question of rushed business; it should be possible to accomplish the task within three years. As Senators Crown and Barrett have said, the proposed clause is properly known as a sunset clause. However, the sun is very likely to be sinking on the Government in three years, inevitably because of the deadline for parliamentary elections. It is likely that the Government may survive three years but it cannot survive much longer, simply because of the constitutional arrangements made for the holding of elections. This should also concentrate the mind because the sunset of the Government will occur at the same time as the sunset of the HSE. If the Government wants to get the job done, it should note there is no guarantee that it will be returned. It may not be.

Seanad Éireann wishes to be helpful to the Minister in achieving his objective by imposing a clear limit of another three years. I am very happy to support the amendment. It is noteworthy that the proposer and seconder of the amendment are a distinguished academic economist who understands the running of bodies such as the HSE very clearly and well and who has spoken incisively on them, both before and after joining this House, and one of our most distinguished medical practitioners and campaigners. Therefore, the amendment is not some kind of light little soufflé that was manufactured on this side of the House for the purpose of throwing a pie of some kind in the Minister?s face. I am trying to keep my metaphors unmixed. The proposal is constructive and I am happy to support it. I will not have the opportunity to reply to what the Minister says but I am quite sure the task of replying will be left in the capable hands of those who proposed the amendment.