When we discuss criminal justice legislation we must try to find a balance between the need to respond to the real problems of crime we confront every day but also the need to protect civil liberties and, as legislators, that is what we must be mindful of when we scrutinise and debate legislation such as that before the House.

Many crimes are transnational in nature and therefore it is appropriate we are discussing proposed amendments to the European Arrest Warrant Act, which was adopted in 2003 and has been in operation for approximately five years. We have had time to assess the effectiveness of the legislation and what must change.

Some of the amendments proposed in this legislation are a matter of clarification or removing ambiguity. They provide more accurate definitions. Section 8 is allowing more modern means of communication for the transmission of documents under the Schengen information system, including e-mail. That is interesting because we must update the Schengen information system, which is an electronic alert system that facilitates the exchange of information between police and authorities in the various member states. We must recognise that we must move with the times and use more modern electronic systems and modes of communication. Much in the legislation can be supported.

I welcome the provision in section 21. As soon as we start talking about the transmission of documents, particularly sensitive documents, we are looking at the issue of data protection. Section 23(1) provides for the Data Protection Commissioner to assume certain supervisory functions that arise under the Schengen Agreement. I hope the Data Protection Commissioner will be adequately resourced to do that because after five years of its operation the European arrest warrant may not be used that regularly. I am not sure how regularly arrest warrants are issued under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 but it will be something that happens more regularly and the Data Protection Commissioner could find a burden on the office unless those resources are provided.

I have some concerns about the legislation which the Minister might clarify because I may not be interpreting the legislation correctly. One of my concerns has to do with section 10 which deals with section (14)(1) of the 2003 Act. It provides that a garda may arrest without warrant any person whom he or she has reasonable grounds to believe is a person named in an alert as defined in section 2 as amended by section 14 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. My concern is if the garda can arrest that person without a warrant, section 10(3) of the legislation then provides that once a person is given a copy of the alert, the person is to be brought before the High Court as soon as possible after the arrest. I do not know the length of time it can take the High Court to hear such a case but once the person appears before the High Court, the High Court can then remand the person in custody or on bail at its discretion for a period of not more than 14 days for the production to the court of the European arrest warrant to which the alert relates.

It strikes me that where an error is made, and I have no doubt errors will be made from time to time under this alert system, an individual could find himself or herself in custody effectively for more than a two week period depending on how long it takes the High Court to hear the application by the member of the Garda Síochána. That concerns me from a civil liberties point of view. I ask the Minister to clarify that point and provide some reassurances about safeguards that might be built into the legislation to prevent somebody being unnecessarily detained.

I have some concerns about the consent to surrender in section 11(c), which inserts a new subsection (3A) restricting the grounds of appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision made under the section to cases which are certified by either the High Court or the Attorney General as involving a point of law of exceptional public importance. That seems to suggest that where the High Court deems that the European arrest warrant issued in respect of a particular individual is appropriate and correct, once the matter is certified by the High Court the individual has no grounds of appealing to the Supreme Court. As far as I understand that is not the case with an ordinary arrest warrant issued by the members of the Garda Síochána and I am concerned that the individual would not have access to a higher court of appeal. I ask the Minister to clarify whether there is another body to which the individual can appeal, perhaps a European court, although I am not aware of one.

I have some concern about section 20(b) and the insertion of new section (45A) on the identification procedures. The new section (45A)(1) authorises the Garda Síochána to photograph, fingerprint and palm print persons arrested under the Act for the sole purpose of verifying the person’s identity. Identification material of that type is often sent with European arrest warrants and hitherto the Garda Síochána had no power to take similar identification material for comparison purposes. However, the new section (45A)(4) provides that a member of the Garda Síochána may use reasonable force to take material under subsection (1) where the person fails or refuses to allow the material to be taken. I would be somewhat concerned about the latitude that might be given in that respect. I accept there are certain safeguards built into the legislation in that those powers may only be exercised on the authority of a garda of the rank of superintendent or higher, that the material pursuant to the section has to be taken in the presence of a garda or inspector of higher rank and that the taking of material pursuant to the section shall be video recorded. However, I am somewhat concerned about the definition of “reasonable force”. Is that provided somewhere in the legislation? I do not see it.

Also, the new section (45A)(10) creates an offence of obstruction of a garda in the exercise of powers under the section, with penalties of €5,000 or 12 months imprisonment or both. I would be concerned that if an individual resists in the exercise of reasonable force they may find themselves subject to a considerable fine or 12 months imprisonment, or both. I ask the Minister to address that question.

On Part 4, amendment of the Firearms Acts 1925 to 2007, I agree with the Minister’s approach. Like others I have been lobbied by some of the gun control groups and special interest groups and I understand their concerns but as the Minister mentioned in his contribution, 2,000 handguns were licensed in the five year period since 2004. I do not have the figures for the number stolen but it is a worrying number. The growth in ownership of handguns is a matter of concern.

The debate about the right to carry arms bears some similarity to debates in the US. Our police force is civilian and unarmed. The idea that the State would encourage the growth in ownership of licensed or unlicensed handguns, when we have a largely unarmed civilian police force, must be examined. The Green Party is supportive of the Minister’s position in restricting section 3D, which provides that no new firearms certificates will be granted, with limited exceptions, for short firearms.

I support the ban on the form of target shooting known as practical shooting. The duration of firearms certificates should be three years unless revoked. We support these measures and we support the thrust of the legislation.

From the discussions we have had about our health services, we are all aware that over the years perhaps there has been an over-concentration on administrative infrastructure and much less on front-line services. Whatever efficiencies we implement now we must ensure the front-line services of our health system in particular are protected and supported. We must ensure this legislation works in a way that will not negatively impact on front-line health services. When we consider how the health boards were dissolved to establish the Health Service Executive, which was supposed to be about rationalisation and making more efficient the administration of the health services, particularly at local level, I do not believe those efficiencies were achieved and part of the reason was that the emphasis was more on preserving administrative structures than on the more important issue of front-line services. Let us learn from this experience and ensure that the way in which the necessary rationalisation that will occur over the coming years happens in a way that prioritise front-line services.

The Long Title of the Bill describes it as “an Act to provide for the dissolution of the National Council on Ageing and Older People, the Women’s Health Council, the National Cancer Screening Service Board, the Drug Treatment Centre Board and the Crisis Pregnancy Agency”. Effectively, we are discussing merging these bodies with the Health Service Executive and in two cases, those of the Women’s Health Council and the National Council on Ageing and Older People, redeploying the staff into the broader Civil Service. It would be a mistake to assume that because these bodies are being restructured that any lesser priority will be given to these policy areas.

I am a little concerned that two of the bodies are concerned with women’s health. I hope the Minister of State will reassure me that their functions will be just as effectively delivered in the new form in which they will exist, particularly those of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency. Other speakers have discussed the importance of the role and function of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency and just because it is being absorbed into the HSE does not mean it has to perform or deliver its services in any less effective way. The dissolution of these bodies will mean the transfer of their functions, assets, liabilities, officers and staff members. The legislation has attempted to look after all of the issues that might arise in this transfer.

I wish to focus on the Crisis Pregnancy Agency because it has performed a very useful function since it was established in 2000. In this country, the strong right to life protections for the unborn, the right to life provision that exists in our Constitution and the very difficult and prolonged debates we have had on the subject of abortion mean we are obliged to back up our rhetoric on such constitutional protections with resources and services. In terms of the establishment of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency, that was done. Its establishment was recommended in 2000 and it was specifically charged with reducing the number of crisis pregnancies and ensuring women who faced a crisis pregnancy were offered real and positive alternatives to abortion. It was established in 2001 and at that time there was clearly a deficit of services, resources and public health campaigns aimed at empowering men and women with the skills and knowledge to prevent unwanted conception.

We know from the research that has been carried out that crisis pregnancy affects 28% of women and 23% of men. The research also suggests women may be experiencing crisis pregnancy at a younger age than before. The average age for women tends to be approximately 23 years of age and 24 years of age for men. Approximately 15% of women experiencing a crisis pregnancy will have an abortion. Those are the figures we need to keep them in mind when we are examining the continuance of the services provided by the Crisis Pregnancy Agency.

The agency was mandated with reducing the number of crisis pregnancies, reducing the number of women choosing abortion as an outcome of crisis pregnancies and safeguarding women’s physical and mental health following the termination of pregnancy. Its progress and achievements have been considerable to date. It reported a decrease of 30% in the number of women travelling from Ireland to the UK for abortion, a 20% decrease in the number and rate of births to teenagers and a 43% decrease in the number of teenagers travelling from Ireland to the UK for an abortion. In 2001 the figure was 932, which dropped to 530 teenagers in 2007, a considerable drop.

Other improvements brought about by the agency include more than a doubling in the number of crisis pregnancy counselling services nationwide, free services being provided in 50 locations nationwide, and providing for a range of choices for potential clients in terms of the range of services offered on a geographic basis. There has been an increase in crisis pregnancy counselling hours of 35% and an increased provision and uptake in post abortion medical services of 37%.

Other contributions for which the agency has been responsible include delivering and evaluating the first strategic plan on crisis pregnancy. It is midway through the implementation of its second strategy. It developed a standardised framework and associated NUI-accredited training programme to improve counselling provision. It published 25 research reports related to crisis pregnancy prevention and support and built research capacity in the field of sexual research. It also worked with the Department of Education and Science to increase the implementation of relationships and sexuality education in post-primary schools.

The Bill concerns dissolving the agency and merging it with the Health Service Executive. The onus on the Government now is to ensure the proud track record of the agency since 2001 is continued in the new form in which it finds itself within the structures of the HSE. Some recommendations made by the agency on sustaining and progressing the advances it has made to date include the need for better access to and information on contraception and contraceptive services, especially for identified groups at risk of crisis pregnancy, and the need for measurable improvements in knowledge about relationships and sexuality amongst adolescents, a lot of which depends on the programmes we are implementing in our schools. Other recommendations include the need for improved access to and delivery of crisis pregnancy counselling services and post-abortion medical and counselling services throughout the country, the need to introduce recognised standards and regulation for crisis pregnancy services, and the need to improve the range of supports to make the continuation of pregnancy more attractive. A range of areas need to be progressed further and require considerable work to be done to ensure the track record of the agency to date as a stand-alone agency is continued and its very important work and achievements are continued into the future.

I am happy to support this Bill, subject to the points I made on the continued delivery of the excellent service to date under the new structures proposed.

Ireland has focused considerably on the issue of waiting lists and timely access to health services. Increasingly, however, because of the ruling of the Supreme Court in July 2008 that the risk equalisation scheme was ultra vires, we must really consider the regulation of the health insurance market so health products and services will not become increasingly inaccessible to ordinary members of the public due to their cost. I refer in particular to vulnerable sectors of the population, such as the elderly, who have more health care needs than others. The cost of meeting these needs is likely to grow significantly and, therefore, we must protect the vulnerable and examine ways of incentivising younger people to enter the market. We must ensure the principle of intergenerational solidarity, which has informed the market to date, is upheld, protected and enshrined in the health insurance legislation.

The Minister of State has made it clear this Bill is interim legislation and it is really responding to the Supreme Court judgment. I welcome many aspects of it and its objectives are set out very clearly. The main objective is to ensure access to health insurance cover will be available to all consumers without differentiation on the basis of age and health status. The purpose of the regulations set out in the legislation is to ensure health service providers do not operate within the legislation in contravention of its main objective.

Section 3 sets out that the principal objective of the Minister and the Health Insurance Authority in performing their functions under the Act is to ensure that, in the interest of the common good, access to health insurance cover will be available to all, with no differentiation made on the basis of age or health status. The section also provides that the insurer shall not engage in a practice or agreement against the principal objective. This is very important. Clear definitions of complex terms are also provided, such as “community rated health insurance contract”, “community rating” and “net premium”.

Section 6 is aimed at ensuring community rated health insurance contracts are made available to all persons without differentiation based on age or health status. Insurers are required to offer any particular contract for a period of not less than 31 days and are to charge all persons the same net premium. The issue of entry loadings is dealt with also. Based on the way the new system of regulations is designed, it is obviously in the interest of citizens to take out health insurance as early as possible so they can contribute over time to the risk pool and the principle of intergenerational solidarity through their insurance contributions so that when they are likely to make greater demands on the health services at a later stage, they will have made early contributions. The late entry loadings are for people who enter late into the market and who do not take out health insurance cover until later in life when their claim costs would be at a higher level. Obviously, they would not have made any contribution to intergenerational solidarity. The main change in this area of the legislation is to ensure that the age at which late entry loadings can be applied will change from 35 to 30. The legislation also clarifies that these loadings can apply on renewal of a contract to which the loading would previously have applied.

The Health Insurance Authority is given a central role in the legislation. Under section 8, insurers are now required to submit new contracts to the Health Insurance Authority 20 working days in advance of offering them to potential customers. Therefore, the authority has a role in screening and supervising the kinds of contracts being offered to potential consumers. The authority is also required to establish a register of health insurance contracts and this register must be available for inspection by the public free of charge at the office of the authority. There will, therefore, be much greater transparency and oversight in the system.

Section 9 obliges insurers to make information returns to the authority, which is a welcome development. The legislation prescribes that these would be six-monthly returns so that the authority, and in due course the Minister, will be enabled to perform functions under the Act. This is an improvement because previously, insurers were obliged to make data returns under the risk equalisation scheme. This provision ensures that more detailed and regular information is required of the insurance providers. The authority must also submit a report to the Minister at the end of every year. This will empower and assist the Minister because it will provide advice on matters that should be brought to the attention of the Minister as a result of evaluation and analysis undertaken. As mentioned already, this is an interim scheme that is being put in place and there will, obviously, be room for improvement. The role of the authority will be to advise the Minister in that regard. This section also provides the Minister with the power to make recommendations to the Minister for Finance on any of the reports submitted.

Section 11 deals with the issue of information and advertising as it relates to consumers. It enhances the position of the consumer with regard to information and advertisements where this is considered to be in the consumer’s interest. Section 12 deals with the registration of insurers and section 13 deals with the enforcement of provisions contained in the Act.

The Minister has indicated this is considered an interim scheme to stabilise the market in light of the ruling of the Supreme Court. Therefore, we need to look at the issue of a longer term scheme. The Minister of State, Deputy Moloney, mentioned that until recently some 51% of the public had private health insurance, but that percentage may have decreased slightly. We need to consider the shape the longer term health insurance scheme should take. The Green Party would hope we would consider a universal health insurance scheme.

We can learn from the experiences of other countries, for example Canada, where there is one major health insurer that deals with all the various private health providers. This might be a good model for Ireland to follow. Whatever choice we make, we must ensure we have a proper longer term scheme. Currently our health insurance market is a bit of a hybrid. We have a strong public health system, but we also have increasing pressure as a result of competition law to allow for private providers to enter the market. We need to ensure that whatever health insurance we put in place, we hold true to the object of intergenerational solidarity set out in the Bill and ensure that no member of the public is discriminated against in terms of access to health services or the provision of health insurance on either the basis of age or health status. I welcome the legislation to the House and the Green Party is happy to support it.

I emphasise the positive aspects of the budget because we are hearing a great deal of critical commentary. Most of those criticising the budget are aware of the difficult circumstances in which the decisions were made. It is important to balance their views by commenting on the positive aspects of the budget decisions. For example, in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government investment in water services has increased to the highest level ever.

 The Opposition would be much more credible if it showed a willingness to acknowledge the positive aspects of the budget in areas such as public transport, the roll-out of broadband to secondary schools and so forth as well as highlighting concerns about certain areas.

Major public transport projects such as metro north are proceeding. This is welcome in the current climate and given the cutbacks we are facing elsewhere. I call on the Opposition to be more balanced in its comment.

I raise an issue on which I touched yesterday concerning the protection the Government is offering to six financial institutions. Other financial institutions operate in this country in which Irish people have savings and so on, but these institutions will not be offered the same protection. I reiterate the point I made yesterday that we need to start to look at an EU-wide approach to regulating our financial institutions.

A Belgian company operating in Belgium, France and another EU member state raised the issue of difficulties where it is necessary for a state to intervene and offer protection to an institution or bail it out. If a financial institution operates in a number of member states, it can be very difficult to do that. In the future, we will see financial institutions operating in many member states. When these difficulties with our financial systems arise in the future, we will need a regulator or a regulatory system capable of transcending borders.While I welcome what the Government is doing at this time, we need to look ahead. I encourage the Minister for Finance and other Ministers, in their discussions in the Council of Ministers, to raise this issue and to be proactive in trying to ensure that an EU-wide system of financial regulation of markets is designed and planned in the coming months.

I concur with the call from my European Green Party colleagues in the European Parliament for an EU-wide supervisory authority for financial markets. They also called for a system of regulation and authorisation of management companies and fund managers. This is important because the essence of the problem with the financial system appears to be that self-regulation has been the modus operandi to date. Governments have allowed the situation to arise whereby many of the instruments traded on these markets are not fully understood by the bodies which are supposed to be regulating them.My colleagues in the European Parliament have called for debt limits to be placed on hedge funds. Arising from our recent experiences, that would seem to be a positive move. I call for us to summon the political will not just to address this issue and debate how to respond to it at a domestic level, but also to use our influence within the European Union to call for and be party to the establishment of an EU-wide regulatory authority that will ensure that problems such as those we are now facing will not occur again in the international financial system.

I agree with the approach he has taken to date, which is that there are no quick fixes, that we have to be measured, take our time and remain calm and look to protect Ireland’s future interests but also to negotiate with our European partners, see what their view of the situation is and how we can all move together. It is a complex situation. 

It was disturbing to see in The Irish Times this morning the result of a European Commission telephone poll, which indicated that 40% of the people who voted ‘’No’’ said they did so because they did not understand the treaty. That goes back to the point raised by Senator Alex White that we must do a better job of communicating Europe on an ongoing basis to the people of this country and other member states because it is not fair to expect them to be able to digest complex legal treaties in the space of a couple of weeks and to make an informed decision on them. 

We should avoid political recrimination even though people are looking for someone to blame. I was amused to see this morning that Commissioner Peter Mandelson was finding fault with the Government. The same charge could equally be levied at him, as he was a target for a lot of criticism in the Irish campaign. We should avoid that kind of political recrimination. What we have to look for now are constructive ways forward. I ask the Leader to invite the Minister for Foreign Affairs to address the House on how he envisages we can move forward. He has been to the Council of Ministers meeting yesterday and has had an opportunity to take the temperature and to identify how the ministers of the other member states are feeling. 

The issue is not just about the Lisbon treaty. The same problems have emerged previously. I have been involved in the campaign on the Amsterdam treaty, the Nice treaty and recently the Lisbon treaty and there is a serious issue about the support of the citizens of Europe for the project. People are not engaged in the way they should be. Most European leaders are very honest in saying that if they had put the treaty to the public in the various member states, very few of them could have guaranteed that they would have had a level of support that would have carried the treaty. We need to accept that and ask what can be done to address the democratic deficit. We also need to look creatively at how we can do that because if we manage to somehow salvage the treaty and not address that fundamental issue we will face further difficulties in the future and that is not in any of our interests. 

I welcome the publication of the recommendations of the commission set up to review constituency boundaries. The results have been positive. The remit that was given to the commission—– 

Senator Jerry Buttimer
Gerrymandering. 

Senator Déirdre de Búrca
—–was to align the electoral areas with the Dáil constituencies—–

Senator Jerry Buttimer
It will be all right. 

Senator Déirdre de Búrca
—–and to reduce the number of three-seat constituencies. Every democrat in this House will be very happy that the number of three-seat constituencies has been significantly reduced. 

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames
It will work for the Green Party. 

Senator Déirdre de Búrca
It is in the interests of the proportional representation system, of independent candidates and of smaller parties. 

Senator Alex White
Hear, hear. 

Senator Déirdre de Búrca
Any of us who believe in the democratic system will welcome that change. I compliment the committee and welcome the recommendations. 

I agree with the points Senator Alex White raised. This morning’s bookies odd on a ‘No’ vote in the Lisbon treaty are worrying. The bookies have improved the odds of a ‘No’ vote.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

Is the Senator giving us a tip?

Senator Deirdre de Burca

Those of us who are concerned about the Lisbon treaty and who want it ratified need to look at those constituencies which are concerned about the possible implications of ratifying the treaty with a view to reassuring them. It appears the Taoiseach reassured the farming community to such an extent that the president of the IFA, who addressed the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs yesterday, has said he is calling very willingly for a “Yes” vote and that the IFA will do all it can between now and the day of the referendum to ensure farm families support the Lisbon treaty.

SIPTU is a very respected trade union which has raised issues of concern to workers. The letter in The Irish Times makes it clear that it is looking for similar reassurance on the intentions of the Government on protecting workers’ rights and not any cast-iron guarantees or legislation which would be rushed through between now and the referendum date.

This is a very important issue because we were discussing the Charter of Fundamental Rights yesterday in the House. It was pointed out that rights are enshrined in that charter which protect the rights of businesses to establish themselves in any part of the Union – as well the fundamental rights of workers and citizens of the European Union. Unfortunately, several recent judgments of the European Court of Justice indicate a tendency to give precedence to the rights of business over those of workers. These are complicated cases and it is difficult to make a clear interpretation of the basis on which those rulings were made, but the point made by Senator Alex White is valid. If the unions, and particularly SIPTU, can be reassured on the issue it has raised this would encourage many people who have traditionally supported the European Union to back the Lisbon treaty.

I welcome the launch this morning of the Dóchas report – Dóchas is the Irish association of non-governmental development organisations – into the issue of disability and international development. The report points out that people with disabilities form approximately 10% of the world’s population. Some 80% of disabled people live in developing countries and form the world’s largest minority. This report makes a compelling case for integrating the whole issue of disability into international development policy. Given that Ireland is the sixth largest international aid donor per capita in the world, there is an opportunity to lead international efforts towards truly inclusive development by integrating disability fully. I ask the Leader of the House to invite the Minister of State with responsibility for overseas development aid to debate this issue with us in the Seanad. 

I wish to raise the issue of the fatalities which occurred on our roads during the bank holiday weekend. I begin by expressing my sympathy to the families of those who died on our roads.

It was disturbing to hear the chairman of the Road Safety Authority calling for two Departments to agree on the roll-out of speed cameras. According to the chairman, Gay Byrne, a stand-off between the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Finance has led to an unacceptable delay in the promised roll-out of speed cameras. While I note both Departments have indicated no difficulty exists, I would like clarification in this regard. Perhaps the Leader will seek clarification in regard to this long promised element of the road safety strategy. It is a matter of concern that seven people died on our roads during the bank holiday weekend. There was a sense that significant progress was being made in terms of reducing the number of fatalities on bank holiday weekends. I believe that between the May bank holiday weekend and the Easter weekend only one fatality occurred. This was one fatality too many but seven over a period of one weekend is far too many. As legislators and policy makers we must ensure we are doing everything we can to make our roads as safe as possible.

Will the Leader invite the Minister of Transport to the House to provide an update on how the implementation of the new arrangements for provisional licences is coming into effect and to address the concerns raised about testing procedures? Driving tests must be a great deal more comprehensive. It was mentioned to me that night-driving is not examined. When we test people we must ensure they have the skills necessary to drive safely on our roads and not put their lives or the lives of others in danger.

The other issue I wish to raise this morning is the Lisbon treaty, which is to the fore in everyone’s mind. Members may have noticed this morning that my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, has mentioned his concerns that failure to ratify the Lisbon treaty could derail the negotiations and progress made in respect of climate change agreements and talks. This also pertains to agreements on emissions reductions that the European Union has pursued proactively. Even in the short time that remains before the referendum on 12 June, the Leader should consider inviting the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources before the House to explain to Members the importance of the Lisbon treaty in addressing the issue of climate change, the present position of the negotiations and the direction in which he envisages them going, were the treaty to be ratified. In addition, the Minister could explain the issue of energy policy because asignificant provision in the Lisbon treaty gives the European Union new competence in this area regard. Ratification of the Lisbon treaty will result in significant attention and supportbeing given to the promotion and development of the renewable energy sector across the European energy market. In addition, there will be much greater action on energy conservation.

An Cathaoirleach
The Senator has made her point.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca
The Leader of the House should consider, as a matter of urgency, asking the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to address the House on this issue. I believe he considers it to be such an important issue that he would be willing to do so despite his busy schedule.