Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I believe Senator Daly has done a service for the people who matter most, the people who require an organ transplant. His extensive research on the matter has been helpful to us all. The raising of awareness of organ donation and transplantation can only be helpful. We have been debating the matter for two and a quarter hours. It has now become very clear that we should have debated the statutory instrument before the regulation was signed into Irish law. That is clear from the contributions coming from both sides of the House. A speaker on the other side has suggested that perhaps all the political parties should sit down with the stakeholders and debate it, which is very reasonable. However, is it not logical that that also should have happened before the regulation was signed into law?

Based on the contributions to the debate from both sides of the House, it is quite clear that the situation that now exists in Ireland regarding organ donation and transplantation is not as good as it should be. There is a suggestion that because the Seanad reconvened and a proposal is made in some way we are being unfair to the work being done in that area. It is also highly disingenuous to use terms such as political stunts when we are dealing with life and death situations.

I have just been looking through a case history of a young woman whose name I will not mention, but she put her name out in public. She is 31 and received a kidney transplant in January 2012.

She waited two and a half years for it, during which time she was on dialysis. This means she had nine-hour treatments at home every night for two and a half years. Prior to this she was one of the campaigners for a national transplant authority. She also put into the public domain the need for a network of transplant co-ordinators in our intensive care units. This is what the debate is about. It is not about partisanship or scoring political points, which, luckily, is not happening today. As stated by Senator Crown the tone of this debate is good. The reason for this is the publicity this matter has been receiving. We have been given an opportunity, through the initiative of Senator Daly, to tap into the wellsprings of experience and diverse opinions on this matter. None of us have all the answers. As rightly pointed out by Senator Zappone, we are talking not about a three or four page statutory instrument but a major comprehensive statutory instrument. This debate is also a watershed.

The issue of the rubber-stamping and acceptance of European directives by this House and the subsequent debate, often two years later, of the flaws therein has been raised weekly on the Order of Business. It does no good for the Houses of the Oireachtas or us as legislators that we accept this. Are we to be cowed by Europe? That is how it appears. Was it felt that this matter meant so little that engagement with the people who matter most was not required and it could be rubber stamped and passed? I find that difficult to comprehend.

During the debate thus far, no member of the Government side has provided a rationale as to why this was not debated. Perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy White, will do so.