Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach for scheduling this debate and the Leader for facilitating it. We should be here. In one of the Government's strongest constituencies, Cork South-West, where there are two Fine Gael Deputies and one Labour Deputy out of three seats, the Southern Star last Saturday reported that 66% of people, the majority of whom support the Government, said the Seanad should be recalled to discuss organ donation. That is the only opinion poll of which I am aware. It is important we do so and that the House is so splendidly attended.

This is an important matter. As Senator Colm Burke pointed out, there is a three year backlog and it is estimated that 685 people are on the waiting list for organ transplants. It costs €118,000 per year for dialysis while people are on the waiting list. Our rate of donation is too low and we would save substantially if we were able to increase it. The debate the motion has promoted in the media has been most valuable and I welcome the Minister of State to the House. It is an issue on which doctors differ. Page 10 of the note prepared for us by the Library and Research Service states the TCD-HSE specialist training programme in general practice supports opt out while the UCD school of medicine and medical science opposes it. That is another reason we should debate this issue. There are genuine differences of opinion on how we achieve the common goal of a higher rate of organ donation supported by the public.

We have had a consultation on the human tissue Bill dating back to 2009. It is a fault in the system that it will only be completed on 27 September. There has not been a note of urgency about this matter.

Article 4 of the statutory instrument addresses the division of the agencies. It would take many lawyers to figure out what the Government intended. I have been a critic of the statutory instrument procedure in the context of other Departments as well. We should debate statutory instruments fully. As Senator Zappone said, this statutory investment amounts to 14,000 words. It used to be the case that legislation was implemented having been fully discussed by other Houses. Article 4 states:

The IMB shall perform-(a) the functions of the State under Articles 5(2) and 9(4) of the Directive, and
(b) the functions of the competent authority under Articles 9(2), 11(2) and (3) and 17(2)(b) and (c) of the Directive.(2) The HSE shall perform--(a) the functions of the State under Articles 4, 6(2), 7(5) and (6), 10, 11(1), 15(3) and (4), 18(1) and (2) and 20 of the Directive, and
(b) the functions of the competent authority under Articles 17(2)(a), (d) and (g) and 21 of the Directive.(3) The IMB and the HSE shall jointly perform--(a) the functions of the State under Articles 11(4), 11(5), 16 and 22(1) of the Directive.

One would have to have a full discussion in Parliament to see what we are doing and not have it signed in August when neither House was sitting

The UK task force made a series of recommendations with the establishment of a UK-wide organ donation organisation. That has been much more successful than our two-organisation model. The division of our organisations is a bureaucratic nightmare. There are differences of opinion on whether people should opt in or out and they should have been discussed.

I have read articles from Turkey and from the JFK school of government that favour compulsion and from the UK and the US that oppose presuming consent. The UK review body started out with a presumption in favour of compulsion and its members gradually changed their minds because of the effect it would have on donors and the distress caused to relatives when harvesting - a word I dislike intensely - of organs takes place. We need to discuss this issue. It has been of value to the House to do so and it is what public opinion wants us to do.

The success of the frequently cited Spanish example is also felt to be not just due to compulsion but to the way they are organised better. Coming from this discussion in this most important House of the Oireachtas should be how we promote on a voluntary basis a much greater rate of organ donation than we have. That would solve the expenses Senator Colm Burke has mentioned and the ill health with which the Minister and his colleagues is trying to cope. We have not faced up to that. The human tissue Bill has been in gestation and consultation since 2009 and still has not appeared. Both Houses of the Oireachtas have been remiss in discharging their duties towards sick people who ask us to assist them in this vital matter.