Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I add my voice to those who have thanked Senator Mark Daly and the Irish Kidney Association for bringing forward this issue in the way they have done. I have heard a certain amount of squawking from Government quarters - not everyone, it is fair to say - about being interrupted in this way during their summer break. In reality, we should be grateful for the opportunity to discuss an issue that did not get the attention it deserved during the last session.

It is easy to accuse political opponents of opportunism, but we should reflect on the inadequacies in our political system, as we have done previously in this House. It has been pointed out by more than one Fianna Fáil speaker that the party had eight opportunities to bring forward Private Members' motions in the past year. That is very little. The time afforded to the debate of Private Members' concerns in these Houses is paltry and therefore it is no argument to say that the fact that this issue did not make the first eight on the list means it is somehow wrong to bring about a recall of the Seanad in order that it can be debated now.

By bringing forward the issue in the way and at the time that they have done, the Fianna Fáil Senators have triggered an important debate in our society which, rightly, has gone beyond areas touched on or dealt with by the directive and the regulations to implement it. It is absolutely right that we should continue to have a debate about the best means of maximising the availability of organs for donation and transplant, even if that issue is only tangentially dealt with in the directive. As I understand it, these regulations restate what is, in fact, the current position, that is to say, the consent of the next of kin is required where a deceased person's organs are to be donated and transplanted. It is a good thing the discussion has gone beyond the issues directly concerned or dealt with by the directive. As others have said, there is often a remarkable generosity involved to which we ought to pay tribute. Often it is, so to speak, a death and life issue whereby the death of a loved person leads to a silver lining or a light for some other person or family where there is the generous decision to donate an organ. We should pay tribute to those who have had the foresight over the years as a matter of principle and personal concern to carry organ donation cards. We should welcome the option available now to have included on our driving licences our intent that our organs might be used in the event of a tragedy occurring in our lives. We should consider whether there is any other way in which people could be allowed to signal that intent, for example, by using a website and offering people the opportunity to log on and indicate their consent for all time or until further notice that their organs might be used in the event of a tragedy.

It is good that we are thinking about this important issue. We should note that there is a deficiency in the regulations as they were brought forward in so far as there is no key single central authority, and this has been pointed out. This has been challenged, and rightly so. It is for the Government to tell us what it would do in the event that these regulations were annulled rather then merely argue that they should not be annulled. I do not believe the annulment of these regulations would lead to us having no proper regulations in place. It would simply be a matter for the Government to get back to the drawing board and do what it should have done, that is, bring forward regulations and subject them to proper discussion and scrutiny in these Houses.

Much has been said about the question of whether moving to an opt-out system would solve the problems with the current system by leading to a significantly greater availability of organs for donation and transplant. The other side of the argument is that what is needed are other changes, as referred to by various Members, including the question of whether one transplant unit should cover the entire country or the requirement for greater availability of resources and funding. It seems to me it is not a case of either-or but of both-and. This debate has led to people contacting me to signal their concern that we should have an opt-out system. I congratulate my colleague, Senator Feargal Quinn, who has done so much to bring this issue to the attention of the House. We await the current consultation process and the eventual, and hopefully not long delayed, human tissue Bill.

I found myself reassuring people in recent days that this initiative by Senator Mark Daly and his colleagues was not about rejecting an opt-out system. The point is that the directive does not decide the issue one way or the other and nor do these regulations. We have had a very welcome debate on the issue and a greater highlighting of the generosity of the many people who have donated their organs. There is a renewed focus on the requirement to put in place all that is necessary to ensure the maximum availability of organs for donation and transplant. I thank my colleagues on this side of the House for pressing the debate. I will be supporting them today.