Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Order of Business is No. 1, a sessional order as agreed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges which will be taken without debate; No. 2, Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Bill 2002 — Second Stage to be taken on the conclusion of the Order of Business until 5 p.m. with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed 15 minutes and those of all other Senators not to exceed ten minutes; and No. 20, motion 17 to be taken from 5 p.m. until 7 p.m.

Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the decision of the President to refer the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2004 to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. Calls were made in this House before the Christmas recess requesting the President to do so. She has shown excellent judgment in asking the court to look at this Bill and test its constitutionality.

I am aware a debate has been organised in the Dáil today on the appalling tragedy of the tsunami in south-east Asia which we all saw on our television screens since the House last met before Christmas. Will the Leader provide an opportunity in this House, either tomorrow or early next week, for us to hear the response of the Government? There has been a tremendous outpouring of goodwill and funds by ordinary people and the Government to the victims of that natural disaster. However, it is important for the people to hear of Parliament's solidarity with the international community, the people of the region and the NGOs that work there. Our solidarity must comprise more than just an immediate response. We must think and plan long term for the recovery of the region and the entire developed community. I ask the Leader to consider a debate on the issue either tomorrow or next week.

Much has happened with regard to Northern Ireland since we last met. While we had an excellent debate before Christmas, I wonder if it would be useful for the Government to have a debate on the issue in the House to see how best we can move forward. Matters have moved on and there is now absolute clarity and political consensus that Sinn Féin-IRA must decide for themselves what they want to do as a political paramilitary organisation and how best they want to use their talents. The crystallising moment for me over the Christmas period was the emergence of the broad national consensus that Sinn Féin-IRA must decide their true path.

I urge the Government to continue to take a tough line on Sinn Féin-IRA in terms of talks and to remove concessions granted to them before Christmas, notably the concession relating to the early release of the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe. I also urge it to examine alternatives that will best allow the Northern Ireland Assembly to meet, although it is impossible that a joint government could be established at this time. The SDLP has produced an interesting alternative which would allow the Assembly to get back up and running under a committee system where the Governments would appoint various heads of departments. The vacuum must be filled. There are moderate voices in Northern Ireland that have put forward moderate proposals for this vacuum. I ask the Government to consider the matter and to organise a debate through which we can contribute.

Last week the Fine Gael Party produced figures from Revenue — Senator O'Toole produced another angle on the story — whereby approximately €1.3 billion is owed to PAYE taxpayers who have made overpayments to Revenue. Will the Government initiate a campaign through Revenue to ensure the office has the same enthusiasm in terms of returning to PAYE taxpayers the significant amounts owed to them as it has in pursuing those who have underpaid over a period of time? We must have an active campaign in this regard.

We must also amend last year's Finance Act which now makes it impossible for a PAYE taxpayer to seek a rebate more than four years after the time at which he or she makes his or her application. The Minister for Finance must focus on this issue through Revenue. It is appalling that such significant sums of money can be taken by Revenue from the PAYE sector without recourse or redress. That is wrong and we must stand up and say so.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the support from Fine Gael on this issue. I have been dealing with Revenue on the matter for the past number of months and have had great difficulty establishing the actual position. We are going to invite the Revenue before the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service to answer some of the questions raised by Senator Brian Hayes and which were also raised by me last week with Revenue and publicly. It is disgraceful that the people whom we entrust to look after our interests in terms of taxation are not balanced in their approach. There will be time for another discussion on the matter. We will return to that matter.

We have talked twice in the past two years about the need to deal with the libel laws. I speak from a disinterested position on the matter. For the past number of months a tabloid Sunday newspaper has been conducting an extraordinary witch-hunt against a member of Government. I do not know the rights or wrongs of the matter but I have a simple view that if a member of Government is found through due process and proper investigation to have breached the required standards of ethics, probity or accountability, and if that is proven to be the case, that person should resign.

Opposition parties who have spoken on this matter have shown extraordinary responsibility and have helped the image of politics during a bad week. Representatives of the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party refused to jump on a bandwagon which attempted to cast a slur on aspects of a Minister's life which had no bearing whatsoever on his job. If he is found to have acted wrongly or to be in breach of ethics or probity, then he will have to go, but that decision is to be made in another place. We should never be seen to run in front of the media and we should remind ourselves of this the next time we deal with reform of the libel laws. I am completely disinterested in this matter but the things that have been done to this person do not serve journalism or the public interest in any way. I cannot understand how this can be done within the current libel laws without any redress being available to the person in the middle. Many articles were not even connected to the story in the vaguest of ways. I would like to return to this issue again and it is important that we do so.

Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is some 12 or 15 years since I was suspended from the House for describing a particular individual as a disgrace. Now that he is locked up in Arbour Hill, I presume I can safely say he is a disgrace without the threat of sanction. I am happy to be able to say it.

I hope the appalling tragedy in the Indian Ocean and south-east Asia has opened our eyes to the question of interdependency in the world and the need for us to realise that poverty anywhere impoverishes and threatens the stability of the whole planet. The sense of solidarity we have witnessed is perhaps the best positive sign of globalisation that we have seen since the term was coined and it has been turned into institutions and arrangements. I would welcome a reasonably long debate on what this response says about public opinion and about us. The money the Government has pledged is very welcome and I compliment it on its response. However, I appeal to the Leader to clarify the point, which is a difficult one, that this is extra money rather than funding which will go missing from other projects some time during 2005. That is not what the people did because charities can confirm that donations to them at Christmas were as generous as ever. People just gave more money because they felt more was needed. They are entitled to a similar response from Government, which I hope will be the case.

I want to be restrained on Northern Ireland but I am being pushed to the limits of my patience from a position of considerable sympathy. I cannot understand how any organisation can expect to be accepted into the democratic community when it is not prepared to say that all of its components agree to do nothing which would threaten the personal safety and property rights of citizens. It is extraordinary that anybody could believe there was room for his or her organisation in the normal democratic process when one of its components was unwilling to commit itself to that position. The reason we need such a debate is that a view seems to prevail that, whenever there is a crisis in Northern Ireland, the worst thing Members of the Oireachtas can do is talk about it. However, every experience we have had in this House indicates that the opposite is the case. Every Member of this House speaks with considerable restraint and seriousness about such serious issues. I appeal to the Leader to provide the House with an opportunity to hear the Government's detailed views about the process by which a significant player in Northern Ireland has run away from what seems to the rest of us to be self-evident, namely, a commitment not to do harm to other people's lives, safety or property.

Will the Leader ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to intervene in the dispute at An Post to ensure that whomever in senior management seems to be intent on manufacturing confrontation after confrontation is invited to go elsewhere? This would ensure that sensible discussions could take place between trade unions which I know want to be reasonable and people in management who can satisfy the rest of us that they want to be reasonable. I am no longer satisfied that senior management at An Post want to be reasonable.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support Senator Brian Hayes's request for a debate on the tsunami disaster. I also hope that the spirit of solidarity he asked be extended to the debate would equally include support for the newly promoted Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, whose actions have been exemplary. This is an opportunity to avoid scoring more cheap shots about his taking a couple of days off for a family holiday.

Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope the Senator is not suggesting I did so.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, I am not. However, this is an opportunity to respond because such comments were cheap shots in the circumstances because, although I know the nature of politics, the Minister of State is very committed to his work.

I also support the requests for a debate on Northern Ireland in light of all that has happened in the past three to four weeks. This House has always treated debates on Northern Ireland with great sensitivity. I appreciate that the Government and the Taoiseach have been responsible for Northern Ireland policy and take initiatives. However, the events of recent weeks represent a crisis in the peace process and raise questions for the first time among this generation of Irish people about the true nature of that with which we have been living since the foundation of the State.

We have been somewhat inured and protected from the reality of what is the IRA and its political wing, Sinn Féin, as a result of the ceasefires, the Good Friday Agreement and all that has followed — all of which we all welcome and enthusiastically embrace. This is not to take a cheap shot at Sinn Féin but, as a representative of a Border county, I was not at all surprised that the party makes a distinction between what is wrong and what is a crime. As many of my colleagues from the Border counties will affirm, I am not surprised at Sinn Féin's and the IRA's attitude that the latter is the legitimate army and the former is the legitimate Government of this country. They have always believed that to be the case. This attitude has never changed — it has just been kept quiet — and has been accepted after a fashion in order to get the political wing of the IRA into the political process.

Now we are faced with a crisis and this House should take the initiative because we are elected politicians. We represent democratic values, which values it seems are now questionable within the republican movement until it clarifies its position further. It would be a useful and important exercise to send a message to all those outside this House. If we were to have a measured, ordered debate to discuss the alternatives and the way forward in the peace process, which would be helpful to the Government, we would be representing the overwhelming view of the Irish people on the issue.

In a week in which the rest of Europe is commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Holocaust and the liberation of Auschwitz, this House should also take note of it and I hope the Leader will acknowledge it. Although Ireland was neutral during the Second World War, it was proactively neutral. Thousands of brave Irish people contributed to the downfall of fascism. Although more emphasis is placed on those who were gassed at Auschwitz as coming from central Europe, one Irish citizen was gassed there. She was a lady, born and reared in the Jewish community in Dublin's South Circular Road, who married a Dutch man. It hit this country too. It is vitally important, particularly with the threats to the democratic values we all espouse and value, that we continue to recognise, acknowledge and remember what happened at Auschwitz and the other concentration camps across Europe.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As a number of Senators have indicated they wish to raise matters, I ask Members to be as brief as possible.

Michael Finucane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The jailing of Ray Burke for tax evasion has already been raised. However, I wish to raise the matter of the debate that took place in 1997 when Ray Burke was appointed Minister for Foreign Affairs. I believed then that the Taoiseach made a serious error of judgment. While the Taoiseach now claims the benefit of hindsight, in 1997 he had the benefit of Mr. Albert Reynolds's experience as Taoiseach. Former Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds, decided for various reasons not to appoint Ray Burke to a ministerial position. It is interesting that in the past few days Mr. Reynolds has expressed those reservations again. At the time, the Taoiseach was critical of Deputy John Bruton and the other Opposition leaders who questioned this appointment. They have now being proved right. The Taoiseach claimed people were hounding Ray Burke out of a ministerial position. The Taoiseach made a serious error of judgment. He should accept this, instead of now trying to muddy the waters about what actually happened.

Many Members will recently have received their ESB bills, which they should question seriously. Several years ago, a regulator was appointed to decide on various electricity price increases and to determine the factors behind them. Over the past four years, the energy regulator has allowed the ESB to increase its charges by 45%. This is a phenomenal amount of money. Every time the ESB requests a price increase, which it has done every year in the past four, the regulator puts up his hands and grants the increases. We speak of the liberalisation of the electricity market. As it has not happened, it is a farce. Full liberalisation of the market is to take place in February. Members should not hold their breath for any significant decrease in electricity costs.

Rather than commissioning another report, of which there are already many, it is incumbent on the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, to inform the House as to how he intends to tackle this situation. We are losing competitiveness in the marketplace. Not only are business consumers concerned, so too are domestic consumers, hammered by these charges. The Minister must not put up his hands and surrender to the energy regulator. He must inform the House as to how he intends to reduce electricity prices.

John Gerard Hanafin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I request the Leader to ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to attend the House to discuss matters at An Post. There are obvious industrial relations difficulties at An Post that are patently unnecessary and could be properly dealt with by management. I have also brought the House's attention to the EU directive to ComReg on the mobile telephony industry. A duopoly operates in this sector, resulting in us paying high charges. This is unnecessary and we need more and real competition in this sector.

Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree that a debate on Northern Ireland should be initiated in the House. A vacuum has been created by the extraordinary events of recent weeks. It is incumbent on all Members to look at how a new context and process can be created, which would support everyone's desire and concern for democratic progress in Northern Ireland.

Will the Leader of the House comment on whether it is necessary to introduce new legislation in light of the court decision on the role of solicitors with the Personal Injuries Assessment Board? Does the structure put in place mean anything in practice? Were the long hours in both Houses, putting in place a system designed to bring down insurance costs, wasted? We need to urgently examine the issue.

I ask the Leader of the House — I raised the matter before Christmas — to include in her list of debates the care and education of young children. A debate on the issue should be scheduled as soon as possible.

Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Like Senator Brian Hayes and Senator O'Toole, I would welcome the introduction of a new system by the Revenue Commissioners to refund people tax they have overpaid, even though in some instances information will have to be supplied to the Revenue Commissioners to give them the full facts to enable this to be done.

Like Senator O'Meara, I am a little disconcerted that legislation that was thoroughly debated in this House effectively has been overturned by the courts. While an appeal may take place, it is important that the strictest objectivity is maintained when dealing with the affairs of the legal profession.

I support the call for a debate on Northern Ireland. Although the situation has radically altered in some respects, I welcome Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson's statement last night that the DUP is sticking to the comprehensive agreement reached in December.

James Bannon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to join other Senators in congratulating the people on their outpouring of goodwill and generosity following the tsunami disaster. It is wonderful that Irish people have such charity in their hearts at a time when the world appears to be becoming greedier.

I ask the Leader of the House to invite the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to the House to debate the Sellafield report and the impact of a terrorist attack on Sellafield on our land. There is widespread concern among the people in regard to that report which needs to be debated. It is important that the Government negotiates with the British Government regarding the carrying out of an evaluation of the necessary precautions that should be undertaken at Sellafield. We have been told that the next evaluation report on safety precautions and so on is not due until 2006. This is not good enough for our citizens or citizens of any part of Europe because the storage tanks at Sellafield are not constructed to a standard which would withstand a terrorist attack. This is alarming for us all. Now that the report is in the public domain, people are aware that it poses a very serious threat on which there needs to be an urgent debate.

Maurice Hayes (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would not get apocalyptic about the court decision on the insurance issue. It appears that it was not saying that the board must pay legal costs. It was simply referring to whether a person wanted to have a solicitor and if he or she was prepared to pay for that service himself or herself. That does not appear to subvert the original intention of the legislation.

I support the request for a debate on Northern Ireland. I am prepared to reserve what I have to say until then. However, I would generally support the tenor of Senator O'Meara's remarks about the need for such a debate.

I also support the request for a debate on the tsunami appeal, particularly the way in which the funds from Ireland are expended and focused to help people get up and running again. We should also have a wider debate on poverty.

In passing, I pay tribute to the work of the civil servants in the Department of Foreign Affairs, by whom I was greatly impressed. They did the country proud. I met people in Northern Ireland who spoke with feeling of the support, help, compassion and efficiency they witnessed and of the courage of the people involved.

Regarding Senator Hanafin's request for a debate on mobile phone charges, Senator McHugh and myself have raised at different times in the past the particular problem of cross-Border phone charges. That involves more than roaming charges, which are penal. An effort should be made to introduce a single charge regime for the whole island.

Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The EU yesterday published a report on poverty which showed the living standards and incomes of people in Ireland. It noted that 23% of the population of Ireland are at risk of poverty and that 9% are consistently poor. Among the latter are listed single parents and their families as well as children, and the frightening statistic revealed is that health, food, clothing and heating were the four items in particular of which those categories of people in poverty were short. These are the items we have listed during the past year as having increased alarmingly in price as part of the rip-off culture we have endured in Ireland for some time.

Will the Leader ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to attend the House and assess the national anti-poverty strategy in place since 1997 to see how effective or otherwise it has been? If such a high percentage of people are at risk of poverty it is surely time that this supposedly caring and sharing Government shared the wealth we now have in this country with those who can least afford the necessities. It is important that we look after the children in poverty in particular and acknowledge the consequences of such poverty over their lifetimes in the areas of health, education and future prospects. I ask the Leader to arrange an urgent debate on the issue.

Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Leader arrange a debate on the Mental Health Commission report for 2003, published before Christmas? Could she also find out about an extraordinary omission from the legislative programme which the Chief Whip, Deputy Tom Kitt, sent to Senators? There is an EU directive on the safety of blood from the transmission of disease to donors and recipients. This directive was issued three years ago and should be enshrined in domestic law by 8 February next. It is not mentioned even under the heads of legislation in the legislative programme and all I can find out from the Department of Health and Children is that it is awaiting reports. In view of all the trouble we have had with blood in this country, the lack of urgency in this area shows a serious deficiency in the Department. I would like the Leader to find out why this situation has arisen.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Fine Gael's leader in the Seanad, Senator Brian Hayes, raised some important issues and we look forward to hearing the Leader's response. I am sure we all believe the President acted wisely in referring the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill to the Supreme Court in order to test its constitutionality. Senators O'Meara, Mansergh and Maurice Hayes have already referred to the court decision regarding solicitors and the PIAB. Will the Leader ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to attend this House to explain the consequences of yesterday's High Court decision in that case? I had predicted this outcome both on Second Stage and on Committee Stage when we debated that Bill in this House. I felt that the client-solicitor relationship is a sine qua non, so to speak, within our democracy, as regards the common good. I look forward to hearing the Leader on that subject, and hopefully she can arrange for the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, to come before the House.

John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with the Senators who have raised the issue of mobile phone charges. I heard the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in a radio interview over the weekend when he expressed his belief that a virtual cartel was in operation between the two leading operators in the mobile phone sector. I agree with him but I want him, as the person ultimately responsible for the communications sector, to tell this House how he will ensure mobile phone users will not be ripped off to the extent they currently are. I do not want to rehash what other Members have said on the issue.

My second point is concerned with the PIAB and yesterday's findings by the High Court. Senator Coghlan is correct in saying the outcome was predicted by many. I disagree with what Senator Maurice Hayes said about the judgment. I believe it goes right to the heart of what the PIAB was set up to achieve. The two main issues as regards insurance costs were the size of awards and legal fees. I debated the Bill with the Tánaiste on Report Stage when she was the Minister responsible for this area. What the judge said yesterday is a direct contradiction of what the Tánaiste led us to believe. I ask that the new Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment clarify the situation in this House as soon as possible.

Frank Feighan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the call for a debate on the tsunami disaster. It is time we knew how may non-governmental organisations are out there. I was shocked to learn that GOAL, Trócaire, Concern and the Irish Red Cross were all involved. Indeed, we tog out tonight for a match for GOAL. Perhaps with so many charities involved somebody could investigate how the money is being spent. The public and the Government always want value for money. Perhaps we should examine the question of value for money as regards contributions to these agencies. Some agencies are much better on the ground than others and perhaps that could be examined from a global viewpoint.

I welcome the latest statistics on car registrations which show they are now at an all-time high, apart from 2000. I am somewhat worried, however, from an environmental viewpoint at the proliferation of SUVs or sports utility vehicles.

Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Tell that to the farmers of Roscommon.

Frank Feighan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are now prolific in all major urban areas. They clog up the streets and give off four times the amount of emissions of an average vehicle. The registration increase is in the region of 30% and if something is not done about the proliferation of SUVs in our towns, not the countryside, there will be a serious environmental problem.

Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Kate Walsh (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Leader of the House send a letter of appreciation to the Garda in Cork over its handling of that awful murder of the little boy?

Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Brian Hayes, welcomed the President's recent decision. He raised the matter of the tsunami disaster and the House could benefit from a thorough debate on that subject. It is less a question of who gave what so much as what is going to happen to the relief funds raised. I will seek to put this in train.

The Leader of the Opposition also raised the issue of Northern Ireland. It is good that the scales have fallen from everyone's eyes regarding this issue. Future events will take place in a much more realistic manner. The challenge remains to keep the peace process intact and to have a movement towards final peace. The Taoiseach has recommitted himself and the Government to that challenge.

Senator Brian Hayes spoke about the interesting solutions suggested by the SDLP and wanted to debate them in this House. He also spoke about the €1.3 billion which is allegedly owed by the Revenue to taxpayers. An attempt is now being made to issue the money without taxpayers even requesting it. Every taxpayer should request the money if he or she has to do so, but I noted that Senator O'Toole was very vociferous on that matter on television and that Senator Brian Hayes's own party had raised the issue as well. Senator Brian Hayes said the same enthusiasm should be shown in the repayment as is showed in the collection.

Senator O'Toole spoke about the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. He also raised the issue surrounding the extraordinary witch-hunt against a particular member of the Government about aspects of his life which have nothing to do with legislation. I do not think journalism was well served by that particular issue. Are all our lives to be made public? It was quite extraordinary that both legally single people were to have their lives examined in that fashion. It had nothing to do with the issue and the Senator did well to raise the matter.

Senator Ryan called for a debate on the tsunami and sought a reassurance that any money pledged is not from an existing budget but constitutes additional money. That was the general impression but we need clarification of the matter. He also asked about Northern Ireland and my position remains the same. We will ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to come in and talk about the matter.

Senator Ryan also asked for the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to come before the House to speak about An Post. Senator Mooney also spoke about the tsunami and on Northern Ireland. He also made an interesting point about Auschwitz and what happened 60 years ago. What we see on television and read in the newspapers brings the horrific nature of what happened before us. There was a co-ordinated campaign to get rid of people.

Senator Finucane talked about the Taoiseach. It is easy in hindsight to have all the knowledge but it is not so easy at the time. That is the point the Taoiseach made yesterday. Hindsight is a great giver of knowledge.

Michael Finucane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He would not listen.

Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator spoke about ESB bills and how energy costs have risen by 45% and felt that the Minister responsible should come to the House and debate the matter. Senator Hanafin spoke about telephone charges and also asked for a debate on An Post. He asked for that before Christmas, as did other people. We have a debate scheduled for next week but I hope no one calls for it to be cancelled. Every time I have looked for a debate on this, I have been told it is not the right time and is not suitable. We must debate the matter, so it has been scheduled for next week.

Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator O'Meara spoke about Northern Ireland and the PIAB. She also called for a specific debate on the care and education of young children. Senator Mansergh said he would congratulate the Revenue if it could find a way of paying back people. Senator Bannon spoke about the generosity of the people following the tsunami and asked that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government debate the issue of Sellafield. The last report on that issue contained some aspects that were quite frightening. We will try to arrange such a debate.

Senator Maurice Hayes referred to Northern Ireland and the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, PIAB. I understand from what has been written about the PIAB that, if one wishes, one can still have a solicitor with one to make one's case. If one does not, one goes along with the PIAB. What has been put forward probably will be challenged. I always believed this issue would be difficult because if it was challenged, as it has been now, it would be the people in the legal system making the challenge. The Senator praised civil servants and I agree with his sentiments. He also supported Senator Hanafin's request.

Senator Ulick Burke asked for a debate on the EU report on poverty in Ireland. Senator Henry raised the Mental Health Commission report for 2003 which has just been published. She also referred to the EU decision on the safety of blood which has not yet been translated into a directive or law and asked me to inquire about it. Senator Coghlan asked that the Minister, Deputy Martin, be invited to the Seanad to discuss the PIAB. Senator John Paul Phelan raised mobile phone charges as well as the amount of awards.

Senator Feighan referred to the tsunami disaster, car registrations and the number of SUVs. He said the SUVs have become an urban phenomenon rather than the agricultural tool they were intended to be. However, a person can buy whatever vehicle he or she wishes. Senator Kate Walsh mentioned the professionalism of the Garda authorities in Cork. We all admired it. The public was kept informed as much as it should have been informed. Obviously, when gardaí are pursuing a case, much must be kept quiet. However, all members of the Garda who appeared on the television or radio performed professionally and well. I agree with the Senator and I will write to the Garda Commissioner to convey that point.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

For the information of the House, a Government amendment to motion No. 17 has been circulated on a Supplementary Order Paper.