Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Like Senators Ó Murchú, O'Donovan and others I compliment Senator Daly on his initiative. Some of the crude language used in certain sections of the media since Senator Daly first launched his initiative disappointed me. As stated by members on all sides of the House, what we are dealing with in terms of this motion is matters of life and death. There are people behind me in the Visitors' Gallery who have first-hand experience in this regard. I am sure they were appalled at the manner in which Senator Daly's initiative was reported in certain sections of the media. Shame on them. As stated by Senator Mary White, if ever the work of a Senator representing a professional body in this House was to be lauded it is on this particular occasion. If ever an argument was to be made as to the usefulness of Senators being nominated by professional bodies this is a perfect example.

I would like to speak about issues relating to the human tissue Bill. In an article in The Irish Times of 25 April 2013 Professor Jim Egan of, a consultant respiratory physician at the Mater Hospital in Dublin said that there are compelling reasons to address the legislative and organisational structures in relation to organ donation and transplantation. He said that the deployment of these structures would bring Ireland in line with international practice, would reasonably allow enhanced donation rates of 24 per million of population, which would save up to 750 lives and remove 520 additional patients from dialysis over the next ten years. This is what Senator Daly's initiative is about. Professor Egan went on to say that, it would protect against the risk of a fall in organ donation rates, similar to that witnessed in 2010 and that organ donation and transplantation in Ireland is at a crossroads. This is one of the reasons for our being here today to debate this issue.

Senator Barrett spoke in some detail about the statutory instrument. What has not been reported in the media is what a statutory instrument is: it is law. This statutory instrument has the same legal status as legislation enacted having passed five Stages of debate in the Houses of the Oireachtas yet there has been no debate on it. How often would the people of Ireland accept or tolerate the national parliament increasingly passing into Irish law statutory instruments without any debate? As stated by Senator Daly, 75% of laws passed in this country are done in this way. This statutory instrument is not a trivial document. It is 36 pages of dense legislative proposals agreed at a Council of Ministers meeting that have been transposed by way of signature at the end of the document into Irish law.

That is what this statutory instrument is about.

I applaud the Irish Kidney Association on the manner in which it has kept this issue high on the political radar. It talked about a late amendment to the EU directive tabled by the UK allowing for more than one competent authority in each member state. That was to facilitate Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland having an independent authority. It believes this was the reason the Department of Health used this clause to divide the responsibilities or competencies of the directive to establish competent bodies. The association strongly believes that leadership and infrastructure properly established can, and should, lead to a 50% increase in organ donation and subsequent transplantation in Ireland. It referred to the weak adoption of the EU directive and said this was the last EU country to legislate for organ donation and transplantation and that we succeeded in losing the opportunity to create the necessary infrastructure to drive organ donation into the 21st century. As has been pointed out by a number of speakers on both sides of the House, other countries, specifically Croatia and Norway, have over 50% more organ donation because they established the infrastructure and leadership to do so. The gain by society and the individuals concerned is enormous and the costs are neutral at worst.

Several references have been made to the human tissue Bill. It should be put on record that in April 2009, the then Minister for Health, Ms Mary Harney, announced the commencement of public consultation and proposals for a human tissue Bill. Fast forward to March 2011, there is a new Government and a new Minister for Health, who proposed a new opt-out scheme for organ donation. Responding to Dáil questions, he said the Department was working to finalise the proposals, that he was considering what practices and organisational changes could further improve donation rates in this country and the proposals would be included in a human tissue Bill which would include the recommendations of the Madden report concerning post mortem practices. Two years before that - there was talk about further consultation - the Department of Health, in its report on the public consultation and proposals for the general scheme on the human tissue Bill 2009, said that stakeholders were strongly advised to submit their substantive suggestions before May 2009 since it would become progressively more difficult to make significant changes to the draft the further it is advanced through the legislative process. We now have further consultation and yet a letter sent to a constituent in County Wicklow and signed by the private secretary to the Minister for Health in December 2011 stated that following the public consultation in 2009 and on foot of consultation with the Attorney General, the Department had been redrafting the general scheme of the human tissue Bill to make it clearer and more concise and that when this revision is complete, expect it early next year. In December 2011, the Minister stated in a letter to a constituent it was expected in spring 2012. It is now the latter part of 2013.

Today - this is as a direct result of Senator Daly's initiative - the Taoiseach's website states that the human tissue Bill to meet the key recommendation of the Madden report that no hospital post mortem will be carried out and no tissue retained after post mortem without consent will also address other matters relating to human tissue, including consent arrangements for transplantation and research purposes, and that it is not possible to indicate at this stage when publication is expected. Will the Minister of State please reply?