Ms O'Rourke: The Order of Business is No. 1, a motion, without debate, referred to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food, which has completed its deliberations, concerning the reduction in the disease levies applied to milk deliveries for processing and cattle slaughtered or exported to facilitate the eradication of TB and brucellosis in cattle. The rates have been reviewed in light of the improving bovine disease situation and, as a consequence, there is to be a reduction in the costs of the scheme; No. 2, a motion, without debate, referred to the Joint Committee on Health and Children, which has completed its deliberations, concerning the amendment of two definitions contained in the risk equalisation scheme provided for under the Health Insurance (Amendment) Acts 2001 and 2003; Nos. 3 to 7, inclusive, motions, without debate, referred to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, which has completed its deliberations, concerning the introduction of biometric identifiers into the uniform format for visas and residence permits for third country nationals. The introduction of such data will enhance the security features on visas and residence permits and will establish a more reliable link between holder, passport and visa; No. 8, the European Arrest Warrant Bill 2003 – Second Stage, to be taken at the conclusion of the Order of Business and to conclude not later than 1 p.m., with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed 12 minutes, those of all other Senators not to exceed eight minutes, Members may share time and the Minister to be called upon to reply not later than ten minutes before the conclusion of Second Stage; No. 9, Social Welfare Bill 2003 – all Stages, to be taken at 2 p.m., to conclude not later than 5 p.m., with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed 15 minutes, and those of all other Senators not to exceed ten minutes; No. 10, motion, without debate, for earlier signature of the Social Welfare Bill 2003 to be taken immediately at the conclusion of No. 9; No. 11, the Appropriation Bill 2003 – all Stages, to be taken at 5 p.m. and to conclude not later than 7 p.m. with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed ten minutes and other contributions not to exceed eight minutes; and No. 12, motion for early signature of the Appropriation Bill 2003, to be taken immediately without debate at the conclusion of No. 11. There will be a sos from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Mr. B. Hayes: On No. 9, the Social Welfare Bill 2003, it is a very bad precedent to take all Stages of the Bill today. I understand the time constraints as tomorrow is the last day of the session, but there is usually only one piece of social welfare legislation, or a maximum of two, a year. One debate truncated into a two or three hour period once a session is not a good precedent. I understand the difficulties with the business today and tomorrow, but I would not like the Leader to think that I will accept this on a constant basis. It is wrong in the long term to take all Stages of this Bill in one fell swoop, and I hope the Leader will consider this for the future.

Will the Leader agree that there are lessons to be learnt in this jurisdiction in respect of the Ian Huntley murder trial in Britain yesterday on the vetting procedures that need to be put in place for anyone who works with children, be it at school or any other level of society? This case in Britain was publicised throughout the world. The person had been investigated ten times by the authorities in the United Kingdom at various stages over the last seven or eight years for inappropriate behaviour with children. That person was then given a job in a school.

There are lessons for this State from this saga. We need to have a statutory vetting procedure involving everyone, whether in a professional or administrative capacity, who works with children, and a debate should take place in this House, perhaps early in the new session. In Northern Ireland there is a pre-employment consultancy service which delves into the background of people in an unobtrusive way to discover if they are the most appropriate people to work with children. That debate would be very useful in this House early in the new session as we all have lessons to learn from the appalling tragedy in Soham. The trial in the United Kingdom over the past few weeks has highlighted the inadequacies of the procedures that are in place to vet people who work with children. We have a lot to learn from that and we should not be so po-faced in believing that our procedures are perfect or adequate in this area.

Mr. O'Toole: The issue raised by Senator Brian Hayes was also the issue I wanted to raise. For the information of the House, in my period as general secretary of the INTO, which is an all-island and all-Ireland organisation, we dealt with the vetting of people who worked with children in the northern jurisdiction for many years, and we have asked many times for such a system to be put in place here.

The issues raised by Senator Hayes are very important. This vetting is done as a matter of course in Northern Ireland. A close family member of mine had to be vetted just three weeks ago, when changing position in the profession of psychology, to ensure that she is an appropriate person to deal with young children in the field of educational psychology. This is just part of what goes on.

This should not be seen as a knee jerk response, as it is an issue that was raised by me with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform a number of years ago. Some minor moves have been made and there seems to be an openness in Government to this, but something needs to be done. The issue here is that parents and others in the community need reassurance. The debate has gone into all sorts of silly things, such as asking if we can still hug our children. The real issue is what we are doing in an administrative and structured way to introduce proper procedures to ensure we do our best.

In the case that was referred to there were obvious failures in the system, but it is one failure and people should be aware that there are many successes of which we never hear. I have no doubt that procedures have been successful in saving many children many times over the last number of years in the UK and there is no reason why such procedures should not be introduced here. It does not interfere with human or any other rights and it is something with which we should all be comfortable. I hope the Leader will ensure this is brought forward as it is crucial, although it does not solve everything and does not give complete protection. However, it does give reassurance, a reflection of a caring and understanding community and political leadership. It is a matter which we should progress.

I wish to refer to stádas na Gaelainne. When we entered the European Community, Gaeilge was an official language. Uair éigin between then and now it became a treaty language. Cathain agus conas a tharla sin? Cé bhí i gceannas a thóg an cinneadh sin? I am aware that there was no discussion. I was not even aware of the change that took place, but there was a change. I cannot believe that it was carried out by a political leadership, whomever may have been in Government at that time. I am not hitting any low blows anywhere. There are all sorts of arguments for and against stádas na Gaeilge san Eorap but I note, for instance, that Malta, as a condition for accession to the European Union, has insisted on Maltese being an official language of the European Community, even though it is quite arcane. I am not suggesting that Gaeilge should be an official language but I want to know where and how the change took place.

Mr. Ryan: Like everybody, the first thing I want to raise is the issue of the gaps in child protection that were exposed in Britain and that are even larger in this country. It is far too serious an issue to politicise, but I appeal to the Leader to raise this matter with the Government. It is not that we need a debate about it, but we need a change in the law to ensure our children are safe. It is astonishing that one could apply for a job as a caretaker of a school here without any procedure for being vetted. It is only those who deal with children in a professional capacity who are vetted, which leaves significant areas wide open.

We seem to learn extremely slowly. It is astonishing that the procedures for vetting people who wish to work in this House in the most minor of capacities are more thorough than those which are used to vet people who will be in close contact with children. It is more than high time we had procedures in place, and they should be introduced before we have a repetition of the sort of tragedy that happened in Britain.

We should have a debate on standards in the new year. There is a story in today's Irish Independent that suggests senior people in Government do not understand that using one's office to make representations to an official in a local authority is really using the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut and is not an appropriate use of office. We should have a debate on this to suggest to people who perhaps still do not understand that making representations, when Taoiseach, to junior officials in local authorities is at least perceived to be using heavy-handed tactics.

I do not want to incur the Cathaoirleach's wrath but I want everybody to understand that my party is not happy with occurrences in this House recently. We were silent yesterday as I have no desire to give second-rate politicians cheap publicity.

An Cathaoirleach: There is a procedure to deal with that.

Mr. Ryan: I expect this House to uphold its dignity.

Mr. Norris: Hear, hear.

Mr. Ryan: The Labour Party will persist with this for as long as is necessary.

An Cathaoirleach: The Chair always endeavours to uphold the dignity of the House. Senators should know the Chair is concerned about the dignity of the House.

Labhrás Ó Murchú: Faoi mar is eol don Teach, d'ardaigh mé an cheist faoi stádas na Gaeilge san Eorap, go mór mhór an stádas oifigiúil. Ó shin, tháinig cuid de Feisirí na hEorpa, agus chuir muid ceist dhíreach ar an bpointe a chuir an Seanadóir O'Toole conas mar a thosaigh an deacracht seo i dtosach. Mhínigh an Feisire Seán Ó Neachtáin dúinn nach raibh an t-iarratas daingean go leor i dtosach le stádas oifigiúil a bhaint amach don nGaeilge. Mhínigh sé chomh maith nach bhfuil le déanamh anois, de réir mar a thuigim, ach iarratas a chur isteach ag an Rialtas agus beidh stádas oifigiúil ar fáil. It seems to be a simple request from the Government for official status. As Senator O'Toole has rightly said, a country like Malta with 350,000 people will receive such status. Importantly, it would also mean considerable employment. There would be up to 200 interpreters and translators provided. This would give status to those in the country able to supply such a service.

Mr. U. Burke: Yesterday a Member requested the Leader to explain the language used in certain items on the agenda. I ask the Leader to request the Minister for Education and Science to explain the language used in his announcement about school projects. There are four categories, of which the first is "extremely urgent", which everybody can understand and includes 170 projects listed for some improvement in coming years. This is very welcome news for those on the list as the schools in question are dilapidated and falling down. The second category is "very necessary". While we all agree these projects are very necessary, we do not know when they will be in line for improvement. Category three is "regarded as necessary" while category four is "projects that merit support".

I want the Minister for Education and Science to come here and be open, frank and transparent, to use his own words, about the many other projects of the 600 listed in similar condition. This merits his presence in the House to explain what he means. I certainly welcome the news for the schools that have been given the go-ahead. One of the Adjournment Matters today concerns a school in category three and I do not know how the Minister will explain it.

Dr. M. Hayes: I support the request of Senator Brian Hayes for a debate on the methods of vetting in schools. I was glad to hear Senator O'Toole refer to the system in use in Northern Ireland, in which I immodestly take a certain pride of ownership and authorship. In a previous incarnation I had the job of developing it. It is important that whatever system we have applies to the whole island. At a time when we are encouraging movement of population it would be wrong if a person who was a suspect in one jurisdiction could slip over and be a danger to children in another. Difficulties arise from matters such as the Data Protection Act and the rights of privacy which need to be fully considered. We must also remember, however, that the vast majority of incidents of the abuse of children take place within the family and are not carried out by teachers, social workers or anybody else. There needs to be a sense of proportion.

Maidir le stádas na Gaeilge san Eorap, tig liom a rá leis na Seanadóirí go mbeidh díospóireacht i bhForum na hEorpa ar an 8 Eanáir. Tá súil agam go dtiocfaidh siad ar an lá sin.

Mr. Norris: I join my colleagues in seeking a debate on what arises from the tragic case in Soham. We need to address a number of issues. There are insufficient Garda resources. The office dealing with this kind of procedure is understaffed and claims it cannot deal with it unless it gets additional Garda resources, which the Government should consider. While there was a vetting procedure in Soham, it did not work because Ian Huntley had been convicted of nothing. This House could usefully give consideration to this delicate area. There was a pattern of accusation and dropped charges, which was sinister. However, there was no conviction. This means we must be careful in looking at the civil liberties issue. Perhaps there is case to be made that where there is a consistent pattern of accusation and suspicion, queries may be raised. This was not a case of a convicted person getting through the net. There is a responsibility on the part of those hiring for a sensitive area to make fairly exhaustive inquiries. We ought not overlook the responsibility of employers.

No. 1 is being taken without debate. While I am sure this issue has been fully discussed at the joint committee, as a hurler on the ditch in agricultural matters, this matter interests me. Over the years very large sums of State money were squandered on bovine TB eradication because there was a kind of collaboration between certain farmers and certain vested interests in the veterinary profession to keep the scheme going as it was the greatest gravy train in the country. I hope these regulations will make it clear that this is over.

I raised a matter before in which the Leader expressed some interest. In the run-up to 2004 and the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the events in James Joyce's great novel, some months ago I raised some concern about Sweny's Chemist, a location known to Joyceans throughout the world as it was where Leopold Bloom bought his lemon soap. There is a marvellous description of the inside of the shop. I warned that I was concerned about the appearance of the building. It appeared it was being neglected and left open for vandalism. This morning as I passed, I noticed it had gone on fire. This is a great pity and the building looks appalling. A large number of people come from all over the world and this is one of the sites they visit. They will raise questions about how we protect this kind of landmark. The matter should be raised with the appropriate Minister.

Dr. Mansergh: Apropos of the comments of Senator Ulick Burke, some category two school projects will go to tender and construction next year. It is well understood that it is perfectly legitimate for office holders to make constituency representations just as it is equally legitimate for public servants to turn them down. That is perfectly well understood and represents a healthy state of affairs on both sides.

I hope there will not be a long delay in the publication of the Cory report on the other side of the Irish Sea as that would create distrust. I hope we will see it, if not immediately then early in the new year.

Ms Terry: I join the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Brian Hayes, and others in expressing concern at the fall-out from the Huntley case yesterday in terms of vetting procedures and, particularly, the fact that we do not have such procedures here. It is essential to introduce statutory vetting procedures for those looking to work with children in schools, child care or sport. While employers should be vigilant, without legislation people can slip through the net. We should learn the lesson. We could have similar persons getting jobs dealing with children here.

Mr. Mooney: I join others in calling for vetting procedures. As Chairman of the County Leitrim child care committee, I have first hand experience of this matter in the employment of staff within the area administered by my committee. Despite the lack of legislation, in my experience there is a very thorough vetting procedure. I would hate to think that the message from this House is that people are not acting responsibly or creating fears that those charged with looking after our children are not in some way vetted. They are. In light of what has been said here this morning and bearing in mind the fact that there is a lack of legislation in this area, one should remember that two police forces in the UK, where strict legislation exists, failed to declare that Ian Huntley was potentially dangerous. I support those who have expressed the view that legislation should be introduced. The Garda is refusing to provide a vetting system. I say this based on my experience.

Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá mar gheall ar an teanga oifigiúil. Cuirim i gcuimhne do Seanadóirí go raibh díospóireacht ar an ábhar seo sa Fóram Náisiúnta um an Eoraip an bhliain seo caite. Gabhaim comhghairdeas le Caitríona Ní Cheallaigh agus Chomhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge, a chuir an díospóireacht ar an gclár. I am sure Senator Maurice Hayes will recall that we had a debate on this important matter at the National Forum on Europe. I appreciate that we cannot accommodate this issue by having a debate during Government time or on the Adjournment. The Leader should take a personal interest in the matter.

Ms O'Rourke: Yes.

Mr. Mooney: This is the time to do it. If we do not do it now, the moment will pass as it passed in 1972 when a scandalous decision was taken, more by omission than commission. We should do this now in the context of enlargement. I wish to put my weight behind the suggestion made earlier that the Leader should take a personal interest in this topic. Perhaps she can tell the House how she is getting on after Christmas.

Ms O'Meara: Early clarification of the position in respect of vetting and the security of our children in schools and other institutions is urgent. I am aware that candidates for community employment schemes who wish to work with certain organisations in the community are required to get Garda clearance. I presume that such clearance would be denied only in the case of a conviction. One has to question the extent to which that is the most suitable vehicle to use in respect of vetting. We should consider who should be involved in vetting and how it should be conducted. It is an important issue, particularly in light of what happened in the UK. We would all feel extremely bad – it would not be tolerable – if something similar happened here.

I ask the Leader to schedule a debate early in the new year on the crisis in the health system. It is clear that there have been no improvements in acute hospitals. I ask the Leader to ask the Minister for Health and Children to come to the House to clarify whether he is reconsidering the implementation of the Hanly report. If the report is implemented, the beds crisis will get worse because beds in many hospitals throughout the country will be closed. The report cannot be implemented.

Finally, a Chathaoirligh, can I personally acknowledge your commitment to maintaining the dignity of this House?

An Cathaoirleach: Thank you.

Mr. Browne: We have heard a great deal about decentralisation recently. The very centralised schools building projects system is based in Tullamore. More autonomy should be given to schools in respect of school buildings. It might hasten projects and be much cheaper in the long run. I welcome the Minister for Education and Science's summer school works initiative, which has given more autonomy to schools. Perhaps we can have a debate on the matter in the new year. Yesterday's announcement of the new building programme, which was made ahead of schedule, will have a devastating effect in County Carlow. It had been proposed to assign autism units to two schools, but this will not happen. I ask the Leader to resume the debate on No. 22 on the Order Paper, statements on autism, which has not been taken in this term. Perhaps the Minister will prioritise the statements in the new year so that we can discuss this important topic.

Mr. Fitzgerald: I ask the Leader to call on the Minister for Education and Science to come to the House at an early stage of the new year to discuss the schools building programme. Senator Ulick Burke claimed that there is a lack of clarity in the terminology used in yesterday's announcement. I do not wish to be disrespectful of the Leader's work in a different era, but the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, is the first Minister with responsibility for education in the history of the State to go out of his way to—

Mr. Browne: He had to do so, after making so many promises on the eve of the election.

Mr. Fitzgerald: I do not wish to be argumentative.

Mr. Cummins: Certain people are trying to get rid of him.

Mr. Fitzgerald: He has gone out of his way to put in place an open, transparent, objective and independent programme for the construction of schools.

Senators: Hear, hear.

Mr. B. Hayes: He is clearing the backlog.

Mr. Fitzgerald: I commend the Minister.

Mr. U. Burke: Some people are trying to get rid of him.

Mr. Fitzgerald: I assure the Chair that I am not trying to be argumentative. I appeal to the Leader to ensure that the Minister comes to the House to give us all the good news.

Mr. B. Hayes: More letters will be going out shortly.

An Cathaoirleach: Order, please.

Mr. Fitzgerald: I assure Senator Ulick Burke and others who are confused that when clarity is brought in here with the overwhelming good news—

Mr. Cummins: What about the promises before the election?

Mr. Fitzgerald: —they might be even more confused.

Mr. Cummins: What about all the letters that went out?

Mr. Fitzgerald: I would like to ask the Leader to address another point which relates to centralisation. Senator Browne spoke about a centralised approach, but I think the Minister's initiative in respect of devolved grants is going in the opposite direction. I commend him for that.

Mr. B. Hayes: This is like Pravda.

Mr. Fitzgerald: I would like to join Senators O'Toole and Ó Murchú in urging the Government to ensure that the necessary stand will be taken at this late stage to guarantee official and proper status for the Irish language in Europe.

Ms White: Hear, hear.

Mr. Quinn: Over the years, employers have had the great benefit of being able to have potential employees vetted by the Garda Síochána without a charge. When I heard Senator Norris refer to the fact that Garda resources are stretched to the extent that the Garda is unable to provide vetting facilities, it seems to me quite acceptable for it to charge for this service in future. I gather that security companies often give the names of hundreds of people to the Garda to be vetted before they are taken on. I mention this issue because it is now common to charge. Perhaps the Garda can make this a profitable venture and thereby release certain resources. In light of yesterday's events, however, we should be careful to ensure that the vetting of those who will be minding children continues to be available free of charge. The additional funds which may accrue to the Garda may well enable us to afford to vet those who wish to work in child care. It is not uncommon nowadays to charge for services which used to be provided for free. Senator O'Toole mentioned that he was rather surprised to be charged for the new Iarnród Éireann timetable the other day. I was unaware that such a charge had been introduced.

Dr. Mansergh: It is a small charge.

Mr. Quinn: Perhaps privatisation has been introduced in another area.

May I refer to last night's very good debate on competition? I learned today that a league table of county council standards and efficiencies has been produced in Britain. Some 26 British county councils were promoted to a higher standard today, while nine of them were demoted. Those of us who are not involved in local authorities thought that the system might be of interest to Members of the House who are involved in county councils.

Mr. Mooney: We will not be involved for much longer.

Mr. Quinn: Competition can work very well and there is no reason why a league table of county council efficiencies and services should not work. I recommend it to the House.

Mr. U. Burke: Roscommon County Council would be near the top.

Mr. B. Hayes: There should be a league table of Senators.

Ms O'Rourke: Yes.

Mr. Feighan: I would like the Leader to arrange a debate on organ transplants soon, perhaps early in the new year. Ireland is the only EU member state that does not have some form of legislation in this area. It is vital that we introduce such legislation.

Ms O'Rourke: The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Brian Hayes, commented on the length of time being given to the Social Welfare Bill. I agree that it is not right to rush a Bill in this manner. I understand, however, that the Dáil finished its consideration of the Bill last night. It is coming to the House today and the debate has to be arranged in the manner I have outlined to enable social welfare payments to be made in the new year. I regret that we have to proceed in such a manner, but that is how it will be. A motion for earlier signature by the President will also have to be taken.

Senator Hayes also discussed the Huntley case. It was asked whether we would have a statutory vetting procedure here and whether that was necessary. The Senator pointed to the pre-employment consultancy service in the North. We have had a good debate in the House this morning on the issue, and it was raised yesterday in the context of the motion on the appointment of the Ombudsman for Children. The Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, asked what had happened to references from people. I do not know.

I always take great care with references, as I am sure does anyone who gives personal references. I am not suggesting that they are secure, but there used to be a system whereby one gave a signed personal reference in which one wrote about the person and his or her family and their standing in the community. To this day, if I am asked for a reference and think that it is not warranted, I do not give it. I tell the person that I cannot give a reference as I do not know enough about him or her. It is just one part of the tapestry of issues that we will have to address regarding this matter. No one whom I know in public life gives a reference lightly. We should go back to that system, as well as having more stringent vetting services.

One thinks of those two laughing girls in their red shirts and what awaited them when they went in that door. It is so horrific that it will never leave our minds, particularly because we do not know what happened to them. That occurred despite procedures being in place in the UK, but because there had not been a conviction, persistent sexual misdemeanours over a period of years did not show up. The case has given us all a wake-up call.

Senator O'Toole spoke about his membership of a 32-county trade union and said that he had asked repeatedly for the standards in the North regarding vetting to be adopted here. A question was also asked about Irish. Who made the change, and when was it made? I do not know. However, to answer in general terms and take up Senator Mooney's point, I intend to follow through on the matter so that the Seanad puts forward the case for the language as it is hugely important. It is one of those matters in which we can express philosophical differences.

I imagine that in all the official flurry and fuss of our entering the European Community, the issue was quietly bartered away. We were one of the first small countries to join. I suspect the matter was put to one side. Ireland was told not to cause trouble as we would enter the European Community and have a wonderful time. In some way, Irish was pushed to one side. However, if very small countries such as Latvia, Lithuania and Malta are to have their languages recognised, thereby – to take up Senator Ó Murchú's point – providing professional employment to those doing the translating, so should we. I intend to take up the matter as a case raised by this House. I thank all those who raised it.

Senator Ryan also raised the Huntley issue. The vetting procedure is shocking. The Senator said that when people come into this House for what are perceived as menial jobs, they go through a vetting procedure. He also asked for a debate on standards and the appropriate role of those who make representations. While I do not wish to go into the matter in detail, what was done did not seek to interfere or influence. It was done for humanitarian reasons so that a man who could not attend to his business because he was ill could do so when he was well again.

I have already replied to Senator Ó Murchú on the Gaeilge issue. Senator Ulick Burke wanted the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, to come here. He has been extremely open and frank. However, I will ask him. The Senator wants an explanation of the four categories and where they come in. I suggest that as Senator Kitt is to speak on the Adjournment, if the Senators speak nicely to him, the two of them might get in on that case.

An Cathaoirleach: That is a matter for Senator Kitt.

Ms O'Rourke: I am quite sure that Senator Maurice Hayes was involved in that issue in his role as ombudsman. On 18 January 2004, the National Forum on Europe is to have the issue of Irish on the agenda. That will be absolutely excellent and I hope that when we come back, we will have a statement from the Government. I will make the case for Irish to it in writing.

Senator Norris said that decent Garda resources were required and that in the Huntley case there had been a repeated pattern of accusation. It was very strong, involving underage girls two or three times in one year. The Senator also raised the matter of James Joyce and what has happened to Sweny's chemist, saying that it will be a landmark for people visiting Dublin in 2004. Senator Mansergh said that it was perfectly legitimate to make representations. That is true, and we all do it. He also said that it was perfectly legitimate for people to refuse to do so.

Regarding the Cory report, I have felt some anguish that we have had a gap in Northern and international debate this term. Although there was a fair amount previously, we have not had any this term. I intend that we will have such a debate. The Taoiseach has said that he would be prepared to come to the House for a debate on Northern Ireland, and we will press for that.

Senator Terry mentioned the law on vetting. There is evil in the world no matter what one does. I wonder if, terrible though it is, evil does not simply have its way sometimes despite what laws are in force and how parameters and strictures are tightened. Senator Mooney spoke about his own situation in Leitrim concerning the child care committee. The National Forum on Europe will debate Irish. That is very good. Senator O'Meara asked for early clarification on vetting procedures, which is important. She also asked for a debate on the health crisis. I will certainly be glad to ask the Minister to come here in order that we can see whither the Hanly report will lead us.

Senator Browne raised the autonomy of schools in funding and the issue of autism, which is still a carryover debate on the Order Paper. Senator Fitzgerald is extremely interested in education and spoke about the devolved grant system which will now be implemented. I do not know if there are any Members here who were in the Dáil when I became Minister for Education. However, I started a devolved system of grants. We hardly had any money at all. People would come to us and say that they needed £200,000. I would tell them that they could have £50,000 and build four rooms with it if they wanted. They would go away saying that they did not want that, and I would say that we would offer it to the next school. In that way it became an ad hoc devolved grants system. It was a great success under a marvellous official called George Rowley who was in charge of it at the time. I realise that time is marching on and that there are ever fewer people who remember one in whatever job one was in.

Senator Quinn also raised the vetting of potential employees and Garda involvement, wondering whether they should charge a fee for this service in order to give themselves more resources. I do not know. He also brought up the matter of league tables for county councils. Perhaps we should have a league table for the Seanad vis-à-vis the Dáil. Would that not be nice? I think we would do very well.

Mr. B. Hayes: Once we are sure of the result.

Ms O'Rourke: Senator Feighan mentioned organ transplants and the need for legislation on the matter. The Cathaoirleach said quite correctly that he was concerned and interested in the matter of standards. On behalf of the House, so am I.

Order of Business agreed to.