John Crown (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. I also welcome the members of the press to the Seanad. I have been reading their work for many years and I often wondered what they look like.

I generally compliment the tone of the debate. I note, however, that it has been commented by one of my colleagues that Senator Daly, who deserves huge credit for his initiative and dedication in making this debate take place today, reminded her of Bobby Ewing in the famous episode of "Dallas" where he forgot two whole episodes. I do not want to lower the tone of the debate but if Senator Daly reminds them of Bobby Ewing, the other great line from "Dallas" was, "Who shot JR?", and the question today is: "Where is JR?"

Why is the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly, not here in the Seanad to answer this charge? It is regrettable he is not here.

This is a critically important debate for several reasons. First, it will spawn debate. Like our smoking Bill three years ago, it will raise awareness on an issue that has fallen off the national radar. It is also worth it if one person, irrespective of whether they agree with this recall or feel it is a cynical exercise, hears the figures for organ donation and decides to sign a donor card as a result. This debate is also important because it will light a fire under the derrièresof some officials in the Department of Health and the Health Service Executive who will be charged with introducing this long-promised, much-vaunted directive which has been gestating since 2008.

Ireland has one half of the donor rate of the leading countries for donation, Spain, Belgium and Croatia. Ireland has half the number of pancreas transplants per head of population in comparison to the number one country. We have one eighth of the number of lung transplants. We, with one of the highest incidences of heart disease in the world, have one twenty fourth the rate of heart transplant. Clearly, there is a problem with organ donation which needs to be addressed.

The problem is absolutely not the dedication of the staff who work in transplant services. Like everything else in Irish medicine because of the critical and cynical decisions made by the major political parties since the foundation of the State that has given us a chronically underprovided health service, we have the smallest number of transplant surgeons and support staff of any country in the OECD. If it were not for the UK, which is second worst for most medical specialties, we would be the subject of great scrutiny. We have no network of organ donor co-ordinators. Senator Sheahan suggested the Minister should select a major trauma hospital in which to run a pilot scheme for one year. With great respect to the Senator, we do not need to as the data are out there. Northern Ireland has 24 co-ordinators; we have none.

The EU directive on which SI 325/2012 is based is just a directive, not a regulation. I lived with the consequences of one EU directive before in clinical trials which had the potential to be a disaster. I, along with several colleagues, launched an international campaign to point out the problems with it. The result was that it was more or less ignored in Ireland. If it had not been ignored, we would have had a disaster in clinical research. There is nothing binding about an EU directive. If we vote to overturn this statutory instrument, there is nothing stopping us from voluntarily complying with what it suggests we do while we put better and more definitive legislation in place.

It was suggested that perhaps other countries would reject our organs. They will not. People are crying out for donor organs from western European countries. There would be no question of someone on a life support machine in Paris, Utrecht or Basingstoke being told they will not get an organ transplant from Ireland because the Seanad annulled a statutory instrument.

My main objection to this is that there has been a colossal wasted opportunity associated with this regulation. We are told we are merely transposing a highly technical directive while we will introduce actual legislation sometime over the next year which will plug the gaps. Pardonnez-moiif I am not full of confidence that this will actually happen in the promised timescale. If it does, then I believe the main impetus would be because of Senator Daly's initiative in putting this on the national political and health care agenda.

Why my lack of confidence? I brought in health legislation concerning smoking in cars with children a year and a half ago which we have been serially told was to be accepted by the Government and the revised heads of the Bill would be ready by the end of January 2013. Nothing has happened. Senator Colm Burke brought in wonderful proposals regarding indemnification.

The Government agreed with the principle and turned its own person down. I have not seen the revised version coming up yet. Similarly, there are a number of other episodes outside the health care arena. The Taoiseach promised that there would be a partial loan guarantee scheme in 2011. It has never happened. The Minister of State with responsibility for training and skills, Deputy Cannon, promised that there would be a FÁS reform Bill in 2012 but it has never happened. What we are finding instead is another example of the Government facilitating the bureaucracy in its flight from proper parliamentary scrutiny, as we saw here with the rushed vote at 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. on the promissory note. There is obfuscation with regard to public scrutiny of regulations which the bureaucrats wish to see implemented.

As I said before, we did not get any chance to look at this legislation or to propose amendments, which we would have done. It will not happen. We know how arithmetic works here. There is nothing stopping us from coming in with an appropriate Bill to deal with the problems in the next few months if sufficient priority is given to it and with the goodwill of both sides of the House, it could happen very quickly. In support of this question regarding obfuscation in favour of bureaucracy, the more I think about it and with the benefit of a few weeks off from the Seanad, I think one of the low points in the parliamentary history of the past year was the Public Health (Tobacco) (Amendment) Bill. This was a Bill that made it easier for the tobacco companies to sell cigarettes. This was not the wish of the Minister for Health who I know is a committed anti-smoking campaigner. It was something which was very unfairly forced on him by the bureaucracy of Europe but it was couched here to make it look like it was advancing public health. There is a real tendency for the Department of Health to do this. It tried to avoid scrutiny at all times and that is why, after much soul searching, I will support the annulment legislation today. If it is passed, I will give a commitment that I will do everything in my power as soon as we come back and even if we come back early to help draft new legislation which would replace it and incorporate the good parts of the European directive and plug the gaps we have very carelessly left out.