Senator Coffey spoke to the Minister about what constituted good law. Good law is law that is not undermined by the creating of significant exemptions or exceptions. It is about applying the same standards to everybody and not allowing for self-regulation where it is not appropriate to do so. This legislation is informed by the principles of animal protection. It puts strong provisions in place to ensure dogs, in particular dogs bred in establishments, will be treated humanely. That is to be welcomed. Therefore, the Bill is very good law.

I am personally very happy to see the Bill introduced because in my constituency, as most people will be aware, there was a high profile case in June 2007 in which a puppy farm had been discovered in south Wicklow in which 76 dogs, many of them pups, had been kept in absolutely appalling conditions. Some 16 of the dogs had to be put down. The health problems found among the dogs rescued included flea and lice infestations, mange, cataracts, overgrown and diseased teeth, bone problems, ear infections, mites, mammary tumours, dietary problems and so on. The puppies had been housed in dreadful conditions with no access to food, water or light. The case was not an isolated one. I know of other incidents identified in recent years in counties Down and Carlow and elsewhere.

The breeding of dogs on the cheap is a grim and shameful industry. Obviously, the objective is to produce cheap, poor quality, pure bred dogs, mass produced by the hundred, usually in cages and kept in appalling conditions. One journalist referred to it as pet production, battery cage style, a very apt way to describe it. The intention is to sell on the dogs on pure bred designer puppies. In a business that is tax free these activities have made it an extremely lucrative industry that provides high profit margins for those involved in breeding dogs. It is estimated that pups are now being sold for approximately €400 and that up to 1,000 puppies a week are exported from the Republic. Unfortunately, most farmed puppies are sold over the counter in pet shops or through advertisements on websites or in newspapers, in which only the mobile number of the owner is given, with the result that the buyer never becomes aware of the appalling breeding conditions in which the puppy was produced.

There is a clear need for licensing and inspection measures to tackle cruelty on dog breeding farms, to bring proper policing measures to these establishments and to provide the necessary powers for the relevant authorities and agencies to ensure they can take action. This legislation is part of the process of bringing Irish animal health and welfare legislation into the 21st century. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, referred to other animal welfare legislation that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in the process of preparing. Major strides forward in animal health and welfare protection will be made when that legislation is introduced.

The Bill gives a legislative basis for the regulation of dog breeding establishments. As others have said, many dog breeding establishments throughout the country operate in an extremely responsible way, which must be recognised and acknowledged. These establishments have nothing to fear from the implementation of this legislation. I acknowledge that the Minister, Deputy Gormley, in drawing up legislation attempted to exempt certain organisations from any undue financial burden that might be presented to them, but this legislation is fair and provides an important legislative basis that will allow, as others have said, for subsequent regulations to be introduced in a number of key areas.

The legislation provides for an increase in the dog licence fee. This will go some way towards resourcing a system that is currently seriously under-resourced. It is proposed to increase the licence fee from €12.70 to €20. The Minister referred to the fact that An Post has increased its administrative fee to €3.50. This will leave only €9.20 per licence fee collected by local authorities to provide for the funding of the dog warden service. In 2008 the income derived from the dog licence fee for all local authorities was €2.6 million, while their combined expenditure on dog-related activities was €5.7 million, which left a shortfall of more than €3 million. Increasing the licence fee to €20 will increase to €4.1 million the income derived from the licence fee for local authorities, which will reduce the shortfall to only to €1.6 million, but there will still be a shortfall.

The legislation, to which the Minister did justice in his outline of it, introduces the need to register breeding establishments with the local authority. Existing dog breeding establishments will have three months from the commencement of the Act to register or otherwise they will be in breach of it. The legislation also requires minimum standards to be adhered to in such establishments. Within nine months of the commencement of the Act local authorities must arrange to carry out an inspection of registered establishments which, in the meantime, can continue to operate.

The legislation also requires the introduction of microchipping of all dogs, to which other speakers referred, commencing with those resident in dog breeding establishments. To enable the making of effective regulations in these areas, this legislation was required.

Some Members opposite referred to shortcomings in the consultation that occurred on the preparation of the legislation. I have no doubt the Minister’s response will make clear the extent of such consultation. In drawing up the Bill and regulations, I am aware that the Minister’s Department consulted the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the veterinary expertise available to local authorities through the City and County Managers’ Association. The draft guidelines the Minister supports are based on advice from the Irish Society for Protection of Cruelty to Animals. Others consulted included the Hunting Association of Ireland and Animals Need a Voice in Legislation or the ANVIL group. In addition, the working group that was set up received numerous submissions as part of its responsibility to prepare recommendations on the management of dog breeding establishments for the Minister.

I recommend this legislation to the House. It is long overdue but good legislation. This Bill provides a sound legislative basis for the regulations that need to be introduced in key areas. I draw the Minister’s attention to a submission I received from the Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in the past week or two comprising some last minute proposals it put forward to the final draft of the legislation. One proposal is a suggestion on the age at which dogs should be microchipped and another calls on the Minister to ensure that the guidelines on the operation of dog breeding establishments are put in place prior to or on the enactment of this Bill. The guidelines, to which the society referred, are on the duty of care to animals, including dogs and dog breeding establishments. I commend the passing of this legislation to the House.

I regret only 45 minutes has been provided for the debate on this motion. As the Minister of State is required to open and close the debate, this leaves little time for representatives of all political parties to make statements on this important body, the structure of which will have serious implications for internal security policy within the European Union. I believe 45 minutes is a short time within which we must discuss the establishment and remit of the committee.

Under protocol 21 of the Lisbon treaty, Ireland has discretion to opt-in, in so far as it sees fit, to the communitarian approach to justice and home affairs, which is to be welcomed. We have provided ourselves with much flexibility in this regard. I note the incoming Spanish Presidency has stated it will give priority to the development of internal security strategy which will come within the remit of the new committee. It is important that Ireland is from the outset a member of the new structure when the Spanish Presidency is developing policy in the area of internal security. We are told the main objective of COSI will be to facilitate, promote and strengthen co-ordination of the operational actions between EU member states in the field of internal security, including police and customs co-operation, external border protection and judicial co-operation in criminal matters relevant to operational co-operation in the field of internal security. We are told also that the committee will regularly report on its activities to the Council and shall keep the European and national parliaments informed.

COSI will be responsible for evaluating the general direction and efficiency of operational co-operation and will also have the responsibility of identifying possible shortcomings and adopting recommendations to address them. COSI, with the Political and Security Committee, will be mandated to assist the Council to implement the solidarity clause which provides that the EU shall be able to mobilise all the instruments at its disposal to help a member state that is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster, which is an important power. It is important that Ireland, because of its unique position as a neutral state within the European Union, ensures that the implementation of the solidarity clause is worked out in a manner that is acceptable to us and the values which underpin our neutrality.

I have a number of concerns to which I hope the Minister of State can respond. Several interested parties have raised with me the composition of COSI. Will the committee merely be advised by agencies such as security and intelligence agencies like Britain’s MI5? In other words, will these bodies be members of the committee or will the committee merely be advised by them? Perhaps the Minister of State will respond to that issue. On the European and national parliaments being kept informed of the proceedings of this committee, will the level of information provided to the parliaments make meaningful scrutiny possible? As far as I am aware no provisions have been set out in terms of scrutiny and accountability. Can the Minister of State assure us that there will be public access to its proceedings and documents? My third concern relates to the concept of internal security. Members will be aware that this concept is much wider than policing, judicial co-operation and immigration. It encompasses all matters relating to the maintenance of law and public order and to civil and military capabilities. Obviously there is concern in regard to the incredibly strong link that will be required between internal security within the EU and external security. Can the Minister of State offer any reassurances with regard to the definition of that concept and the remit of the committee as a result?

The Bill is timely because there is an increasing convergence between telecoms and broadcasting resulting in significant innovation in these premium rate services. There are subscription media services on mobile phones, interactive gaming on television and even entire television channels based on premium rate calling. There are also significant business applications for premium rate services. In Ireland we are all familiar with unique prefixes relating to the premium rate services: 1530, 1540, 1550, 1559, 1560, 1570 and 1580. The 1559 prefix is dedicated solely to adult services and can only be accessed with a PIN issued by a network operator. Calls to premium rate services cost more than ordinary telephone calls and each prefix has a specific call cost. The role of regulation is important. Others have referred to this. One of its important purposes is to prevent consumer harm, in particular to ensure clear and accurate pricing information is provided along with honest advertising and service content. This Bill will accomplish this by ensuring the new regulatory system includes those strong consumer provisions.

In earlier days it was much more common for premium numbers to be used fraudulently. Computer criminals have used premium rate numbers to defraud unsuspecting Internet users. As we know, many more children and young people are using the Internet, which makes them vulnerable to this type of fraud. One particular scheme involved encouraging users to download a programme known as a “dialler” which surreptitiously dialled a premium rate number, accumulating charges on the user’s phone bill without his or her knowledge. Another premium rate scam involved television programming that encouraged young children to dial a number, relying on the assumption that they would be unaware of the charges to be incurred.

In Ireland, premium rate telephone services have been regulated by Regtel, an independent non-profit company formed in 1995. It operates through a strict code of practice with which all service providers in Ireland must comply. Regtel has been required to assure consumer protection when using national or international premium rate services and has put in place procedures to deal with consumer complaints that arise from the use of these services.

The Bill provides for the transfer of the function of the regulation of premium rate services from Regtel to the Commission for Communications Regulation, ComReg. It also provides for certain other amendments to the overall communications framework. The transfer of the regulatory function to ComReg will ensure an effective regime that addresses the present market environment is established and this is in accordance with Government policy on agency rationalisation. The legislation enables ComReg to license the premium rate services by specifying the classes or types of premium rate services that require to be licensed, the terms and conditions that may be attached, and the information that premium rate service providers must provide to ComReg upon request. Significantly, it also deals with the issue of offences and penalties. The Bill provides the necessary investigative powers to ComReg to ensure the conditions of a licence are being complied with. ComReg will be empowered to revoke, amend or suspend a PRS licence with immediate effect, if necessary, where it finds that the holder has failed to comply with a licence condition. It also provides for summary and indictable offences relating to the provision of unlicensed premium rate services and summary offences for overcharging for services or charging for services not supplied. A service provider aggrieved by a decision of ComReg to refuse to grant or revoke, amend or suspend a PRS licence will have the right of appeal to the Circuit Court.

Significantly, too, the Bill provides that ComReg will, in consultation with the industry and other interested parties, prepare and publish a code of practice to be followed by premium rate service providers. Compliance with the code of practice will be a condition of the licence.

I have mentioned that the legislation makes some other changes to the communications infrastructure. Having been a member of a local authority, I particularly appreciate the fact that this Bill amends Part 5 of the principal Act of 2002 to facilitate the National Roads Authority in making ducting infrastructure on national roads and motorways available for fibre roll-out. This will facilitate the roll-out of fibre throughout the country to provide broadband connectivity, one of the priorities the Minister has emphasised his Department will pursue. This legislation will facilitate us in developing the communications infrastructure which will help achieve that objective. Under the principal Act, local authorities were the sole consent-giving authority for local, regional and national roads as well as motorways. This amendment in the legislation before the House designates the National Roads Authority as an authority for national roads, which includes motorways. This will enable the National Roads Authority to make available to network operators access to the ducting on national roads and motorways to facilitate the roll-out of high-speed fibre networks in the regions.

For all these reasons I commend the legislation and I commend the Minister on its introduction. I happily support the Bill.

I have to hand it to the Green Party’s Government colleagues, Fianna Fáil, which has supported us in our efforts since we came into government. It agreed to sign up to the Green elements of the programme for Government even though the issues in question did not form a core part of its political agenda. Fianna Fáil is supporting the Green Party and making it possible for these important changes to occur. In the future, people will look back and say that the current Government introduced important changes, some of which I would like to mention. We have committed ourselves to a 3% annual reduction in carbon emissions. We have introduced carbon legislation to enshrine those emission reductions in law soon. A carbon budget is delivered by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government around the same time as the main budget. This shadow budget, in effect, makes clear the impact and implications of the main budget for our carbon performance. The carbon budget will assume greater importance as we tie ourselves into legally binding commitments at national, European and international levels. It will help us to keep track of how we are doing in relation to the targets we have set for ourselves.

The Government has changed the vehicle registration tax system so that it favours the purchase of environmentally friendly cars. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, has introduced building regulations to ensure new homes and buildings to be constructed in this country are much more energy efficient. That will lead to reductions in carbon emissions. By introducing the insulation grants, greener homes, home energy savings and warmer homes schemes, we have created new jobs at a time when many jobs in the construction sector have been lost. The media teased the Green Party for its focus on energy-efficient light bulbs, which is another example of a policy that will help Ireland to meet the targets to which it has signed up and legislatively tied itself into. Our planning legislation is being improved. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, has introduced the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009 to ensure there is much more consistency between what we say we are doing at national level and the local planning decisions of local councillors, for example on the rezoning of lands. We are continuing to prioritise public transport. The transport sector contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. Public transport is much more energy-efficient and much cleaner. We are prioritising public transport. All of these things are important.

If Ireland wants to enjoy what is known as first mover advantage, it should willingly continue to make the essential and necessary changes to which the international community will sign up over the next decade or so. We need to develop a strong, clean and green economy in this country. We should use our membership of the EU to influence the kind of legislation that is emerging from the Commission. That will put us in a favourable position to benefit from the many economic opportunities that will arise in the years to come and give us a head start on others. Initiatives like the services directive, which will be fully implemented at EU level later this month, will allow Irish companies that are to the fore and have developed their ideas to provide services freely throughout the Union and to enjoy great commercial and business opportunities.

I am very happy we have had a chance to speak about climate change. I hope the commitment of Senators to tackling climate change will be followed through when the time comes to adopt policies. The decisions we will have to make about policy changes may be controversial in the short term, but in the longer term they will position Ireland well in the context of the green economy.

We are limiting the amendment we are proposing to a very clear focus, namely, that section 59(b) of the Mental Health Act 2001 which relates to the involuntary use of electroconvulsive therapy be deleted. What we are proposing will not interfere with the voluntary use of this treatment. Electroconvulsive therapy is a controversial treatment. The website of the Royal College of Psychiatrists attests to this fact and states the benefits of the treatment are as yet unproven. Electroconvulsive therapy involves the forcible administration of an electric shock to patients who are extremely mentally unwell. The protocols set out under the Mental Health Act 2001 require that an anaesthetic and a muscle relaxant be used as part of the administration of the procedure.

There is widespread disagreement among psychiatrists in respect of this therapy and some of them refuse to administer it. There is great variation, on a regional basis, in the use of electroconvulsive therapy in Ireland. The therapy is so controversial because the long-term impacts are extremely serious. The impacts that have been reported by those who have undergone the procedure include emotional blunting, serious loss of memory, other cognitive impairments and a sense of a gross violation of their physical integrity. The World Health Organization, WHO, is opposed to the involuntary use of electroconvulsive therapy, particularly on those under 18 years of age.

Mental health difficulties and serious mental illness present a real challenge to society. We are moving in the direction of using more humane and multidimensional treatments. When one considers the history of psychiatry, one becomes aware that many barbaric practices which completely violated individuals’ rights were used. We are moving slowly towards the use of more humane treatments.

The Bill proposes something from which future generations of mental health patients will benefit. A certain amount of courage will be required in accepting the Bill. There is a great deal of concern and ignorance among members of the general population and legislators with regard to whether what is proposed would amount to good practice. I argue, on the basis of the research carried out by the Green Party, that it does amount to good practice. I call on the members of other parties to support the Bill which will lead to the deletion of the sections of the Mental Health Act 2001 relating to the involuntary use of electroconvulsive therapy being deleted.

I wish to respond to Senator Twomey’s point about whether we should support the use of ECT. The thrust of our amendment is to remove the involuntary use of ECT from the Statute Book. The question of removing it altogether is a wider one. It misses the point of our amendment. Senator Twomey said surgery is invasive.

Acting Chairman: The Senator is responding to the queries but Senator Mullen has indicated he wishes to speak. I did not realise that Senator de Búrca wanted to respond.

Senator Dan Boyle: The Senator is just making a point.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca:  Yes, I am just making a point in response to Senator Twomey. He said that surgery is involuntary in that it is invasive but will he consider how acceptable it would be to the public if we were to carry out involuntary surgery because we felt it would achieve certain outcomes? That would be absolutely unacceptable. As Senator Boyle said we must examine complementary approaches to treating physical——

Acting Chairman:  The Senator is responding to questions. Senator Mullen has yet to speak. When we return to this side the Senator, or whoever wishes to respond, may do so.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca:  I wish to make one final point because this is important. When we raised this issue over a year ago, many who contributed said they did not know enough and wanted to defer to mental health experts, psychiatrists and so on. That was over a year ago. We have had an opportunity here——

Acting Chairman:  I have to deal with procedure.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca:  We have had an opportunity for hearings and to invite in experts but have not done so. We are still at the point we were at last year. No reforms or changes have been made to the Mental Health Act. Senators have made very good suggestions today about the need for people with serious mental health difficulties to have advocates, for advanced directives, considering approaches that have social and psychological dimensions rather than relying on extreme, controversial biological treatments such as ECT and its involuntary use. It is important to respond to the points other people are making here. We need to take this issue more seriously. Over a year has elapsed since we introduced this Bill and unfortunately we have made very little progress.

Acting Chairman: I have no problem allowing anyone respond but people must speak first, then the Senator can respond.

I listened with interest to the debate today. Senators have spoken movingly about the distress of constituents throughout the country. It is right and proper that we use our positions to do that. However, there is something fundamentally unsatisfactory about the fact that at national level, all the political parties are saying the right things about flooding — how dreadful it is, asking how it happened and saying more must done through the provision of emergency funding and so forth — but at local level on the part of all the political parties there is very irresponsible zoning of flood risk areas and flood plains. Even as we speak decisions are probably being made in which people are convincing themselves that it will not make a difference or that they can zone an area if they put in certain measures as well.

It must be recognised that we are in a new era in terms of climate change. We will continue to experience the type of high and extreme levels of precipitation we have seen over recent years. Our drainage systems will be under extraordinary pressure and the type of flooding we are experiencing at present will happen again. Hopefully, we will be able to mitigate and reduce the drastic impact of that flooding, but it will happen more regularly. What we once considered to be once in 100 years storms will become once in 50 years, once in 20 years or once in ten years storms. We must do everything we can, particularly in the way we plan our communities in future, to ensure we do not worsen the situation or create an environment where people are left in the conditions we have seen through the excellent coverage by the national broadcaster. Through that coverage one is almost with the people in their kitchens, walking around with them knee high in flood waters and empathising fully with them.

One of the worst things that can happen to anybody is to have their home and belongings subject to flooding. It has an effect not just at the time of the flooding but in the weeks and months afterwards when the clean-up is taking place and one must go through the awful business of trying to find out if the insurance company is prepared to provide funding for the work required to restore the property and replace the belongings that have been damaged. We have heard many stories of insurance companies that are refusing to provide insurance to homeowners who have claimed once as a result of flooding of their property.

As people who are involved in making critical planning decisions, we cannot continue to allow this to happen. At this time when we are discussing the issue of zoning, all political parties should pledge to ensure that what they say at national level will be implemented and complied with by their councillors at local level. If they do not, they will be guilty of extreme hypocrisy. There is little good when the damage is done asking the Government to provide funds to mitigate or try to remedy some of that damage because at that stage the expense is huge. People are already trying to calculate the economic damage that has been done throughout the country as a result of flooding. Every political party must resolve that the message will go to local councillors that the flood guidelines the Minister, Deputy Gormley, is due to introduce in the near future must be adhered to.

This country must also examine the issue of the accountability we will seek if people continue to zone and make planning decisions in irresponsible ways. Recently we have seen in the banking sector how people behaved in a very reckless way and appear to date to have suffered few consequences for that behaviour, even though the livelihoods of many people have been destroyed. We must examine the planning process and if people are ignoring recommendations of planners and flood management guidelines, proceeding to zone flood plains and grant planning permission in areas that are susceptible to flooding or are recognised as flood plains, there should be some serious penalty and the people who are making those critical decisions should be held responsible. We must make this a serious issue and make the consequences clear so we can persuade councillors in future to be mindful of this when making planning decisions.

With regard to what can be done, I agree with Senator Norris’s remarks about water management. There must be better water management systems. The water framework directive is a very good policy framework for improving our water management systems. The policy is based on national river basins and catchment areas. We must ensure local authorities are working together well so they do not view this matter in terms of artificial local authority areas, but as the natural catchment areas and basins of our rivers. We need to identify flood risk and flood prone areas and flood plains in our county and local area development plans. We need to ensure full implementation of the national guidelines that will be introduced soon by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley.

We must ask local authorities to audit their drainage systems and set out clear plans over the next year or two to improve them. The Government must ensure flood protection measures in high-risk areas are implemented and that funding is providing. We will not have enough funding to implement them everywhere, but we are all aware of certain high-risk areas, including Clonmel where flood protection measures are not completed but are in progress, Bray and other areas that are regularly subjected to serious flooding.

We need to consider the issue of reservoirs and hydroelectric power stations to ensure the types of problem experienced in the past week or so do not recur. We must increase their capacities to take account of the fact that flooding will be a more regular occurrence.

Because I am not familiar with this area, I looked at the annual report of the Courts Service where I found that the functions of the service are wide ranging and important. It manages the courts, supports the Judiciary, provides services to court users, provides and maintains court buildings and provides information on the courts to the public. It is important that the service is working effectively and efficiently. However, as others have mentioned, we are facing difficult times with regard to our public finances, and the Courts Service will need to conduct its services with less money. We must try to ensure that whatever changes take place do not have a negative impact on the front-line services, particularly customer and courtroom services.

I welcome the Bill. While it is largely technical in nature, it will introduce much more efficient operational procedures into the Courts Service which will be put into effect at the new Criminal Courts of Justice when it is opened, although the date for that is still up in the air. It will streamline procedures for custody arrangements, prevent the duplication of duties by the Garda Síochána and free gardaí for operational duties.

The Bill alters some of the structures that were put in place by earlier courts legislation so that the service can prepare for the move to the Criminal Courts of Justice complex near the Phoenix Park. This will be quite an impressive facility with 450 rooms, 22 courtrooms and ancillary facilities, and vastly improved facilities generally for both staff and the Judiciary. It will enable the courts staff to operate in a single administrative office in support of all the courts, of which there are 22, including the Central Criminal Court, the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Special Criminal Court, the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court and the Dublin District Court. These will all be located in the new facility. This will allow for improved flexibility in staff arrangements, which will be important in years to come.

The Bill hopes to achieve administrative efficiencies by consolidating the court offices on a thematic, that is, criminal, basis. The District Court deals with approximately 450,000 cases per year while the Supreme Court deals with fewer than 500. Section 15 will allow the criminal aspects of the High Court office to be relocated to the Phoenix Park office while retaining a civilian jurisdiction in the existing office in the Four Courts. The Bill also requires that the head of each office, the senior sitting judge, be consulted before any such consolidated office can be established. Section 17 also allows for the administrative business of the Special Criminal Court to be dealt with by a nominated court office.

The remainder of Part 3 combines the court offices into the existing legislative structures. Essentially, the sections clarify that all previous references to a court office should be read in future as including a reference to the new combined office. Section 23 provides that there be no disruption to court business or filing of documents where court offices are being reconfigured and jurisdiction is being transferred. This is important to avoid the kind of upheaval that can sometimes occur when there is a reconfiguration of services.

Some of the other technical changes made by the Bill, as others have mentioned, are in the area of bail recognisance. I was obliged to educate myself about bail recognisance which is an obligation or bond made before a court for a person to perform some act, for example, to appear before a court or ensure the attendance of an accused person at a trial.

The various courts have slightly different rules as to who can enter a recognisance. A bond or recognisance does not always have to be entered by an individual. Where it is required from a person, the judge may accept an instrument executed by a solvent person, corporation or insurance company. In the context of bail, recognisance will be estreated, that is, forfeited on foot of a special procedure in circumstances where the person fails to appear and a warrant for arrest is issued or the person is brought before the court and the court is satisfied that he or she has contravened the terms of the recognisance.

Under the Criminal Procedure Act 1967, recognisances may be taken by a District Court judge, a District Court clerk, a peace commissioner, the governor of a prison or a prison officer designated by a prison governor. The Act provided the District Court with the options of either requiring the accused to enter a judicially determined recognisance into court or of refusing bail and remanding him or her into custody. Section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007 allowed the District Court judge a third option of a non-monetary recognisance, in recognition of the circumstances faced by many people in this situation. However, the wording of the Act gave rise to the potential interpretation that only a District Court judge could take a non-monetary recognisance. An amendment in this Bill allows for District Court clerks to receive this form of recognisance where the court has admitted a person to bail as part of being remanded or sent for trial or sentence. Effectively, it allows for the administrative act of taking a non-monetary recognisance to be undertaken by a District Court clerk rather than a judge.

The Bill also provides for changes in the area of temporary custody. There has been a gradual shift from employing gardaí for escort duties and transfers of prisoners for court appearances are now largely carried out by the Prison Service escort corps, which is based in Cloverhill Prison in west Dublin and has a staff of 156 and a fleet of 52 vehicles. However, occasions arise when gardaí have to resume escort duties. Part 2 of the Bill aims both to resolve these jurisdictional issues and reduce the resource burden of escorting prisoners to and from prisons in advance of the completion of the Central Criminal Court complex by allowing custody facilities to be managed by the Prison Service. While the default position is that prisoners will remain under the jurisdiction and physical control of the Prison Service officers on their way to and from court appearances, section 6 of the Bill provides that a prisoner may lawfully be placed temporarily under the control of a garda or a prison governor in a court house or place adjacent to a court house.

Section 11 of the Bill provides that the holding area officer may use such force as is necessary to carry out his or her duties in respect of temporary custody. Section 11(2) provides that the series of rules dealing with all aspects of prison regulation will only apply so in so far as they deal with the regulation of searches conducted in the temporary holding facility. Section 12 also provides that the Minister may make regulations on the standard and procedures relating to the orderly management of any place in which a person is held. I share Senator Bacik’s concerns about this section and ask for clarification on it. If it is intended to introduce safeguards for prisoners who have not yet been prosecuted of found guilty or who may be appearing as a witness, it is important that we provide proper safeguards for their treatment while in temporary custody. Otherwise, I welcome this technical but important Bill, which will achieve greater efficiencies and cost savings in the Courts Service.

We will have to face up to the irresponsible practices which reigned during the developer-led boom. I hope this legislation ushers in a new, smart era of planning. The relationships of economic renewal, development and proper planning are very strong. If we plan according to proper criteria we will encourage economic development. One of the purposes of the Bill is to ensure that the national spatial strategy, a rational plan for how we roll out infrastructure across the country, will be consistent with regional planning guidelines and development and local area plans so that there will be synergy in the various levels of planning.

Having been a county councillor on Wicklow County Council for eight years during the development boom, I was always struck by the lack of synergy in the national spatial strategy, strategic planning guidelines for the Dublin area, county development plans and local area plans. While higher level plans, such as the national spatial strategy and regional planning guidelines, required local councils to have regard to the overall strategy, they seemed to completely disregard it and drew up development and local area plans as though they were free to zone wherever they wanted according to their own rationales, instead of following a more coherent national approach in line with the Government’s commitments to both physical and social infrastructure. In the case of Wicklow, there was massive over-zoning of land without the infrastructure to back it up. Land would be zoned regardless of whether there was a commitment to provide the necessary infrastructure and the price of the land would shoot up as a result. The individual or developer who owned the land benefited significantly but it contributed little to the proper development of the county. The process of drawing up development and local area plans in Wicklow was ad hoc and based on who knew whom and who had a word in a councillor’s ear to exert pressure.

It would not be tolerable to continue that approach to planning so this Bill, into which the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, has put so much time and thought, is very welcome, even if it would have been much better had it been produced during the life of previous Governments when the building boom was at its height. In his analysis of zoning patterns around the country, the Minister has concluded that enough land is currently zoned to provide development land up to 2075. In their enthusiasm to zone land, certain councillors provided for a population which will be here long after those councillors have passed away. It is important to build some headroom into a local area or development plan, but the year 2075 is 66 years away. Rezoning enough land for six or seven decades, when the lifetime of a development plan is five years, is ridiculous.

The Bill before the House will require that local authorities have an evidence-based core strategy which underpins their development plans. In other words, they must have a sound evidential basis for the development plan and for the housing strategy which examines population trends to ensure it is based on realistic projections. The Bill will also ensure there is total consistency between local area development plans, regional planning guidelines and the national spatial strategy. It will result in a more focused land use strategy, which is badly needed. More focused land use strategies will result in a more efficient use of taxpayers’ money by allowing the State to target more accurately investment in essential infrastructure and services.

It is to be hoped the Bill will mean we will have a more compact land use strategy, which will help to ensure the proper provision of physical and social infrastructure. As we are aware, there is a lot of infrastructure that needs to be modernised and developed, including waste water treatment facilities. We also need schools, community facilities, roads and public transport infrastructure. I hope that the proper, coherent planning envisaged by the Bill will make it more feasible for Governments to be confident about investing in public transport in future. We need to bring public transport up the standards we can see in other countries, including many EU member states. We will not be able to do so, however, unless we ensure planning and land use happen in a focused and reasonable manner, based on proper population projections. Scatter-gun, ad hoc development makes it very difficult to plan for proper infrastructural provision.

The Bill will result in stronger management of land zoning. It will ensure the location, amount and phasing of land zoned for development is more closely linked to the Government’s economic policy, including the national spatial strategy, regional planning guidelines and capital investment programmes for national infrastructure.

There are other positive elements in this legislation. I note that the making or variation of a development plan or local area plan will now require the support of two thirds of the total membership of a planning authority instead of a simple majority. I am delighted to see this. I recall debates being held between councillors who wanted to promote a particular zoning about whether to go for a material contravention or a variation. Very often, the variation was chosen because it only required a simple majority of councillors. In discussing land zoning, we must ensure a significant majority of elected members of a council support a zoning according to clear criteria. For that reason, this change in the legislation is welcome.

The legislation will ensure that only minor amendments will be permitted to draft development or local area plans which have been the subject of public consultation. That is a welcome provision. In my own experience of local area plans and the Wicklow county development plan, such plans go on public display followed by a reaction from the public and developers. However, very often at the last stages of a development plan, elected members would introduce large-scale rezoning which would be thrown into the mix late at night. Planners often had to work hard to try to have those zoning proposals modified or thrown out. It was an inappropriate practice, but the Bill will ensure such practices no longer happen.

Ministerial guidelines will have greater legal force under this legislation. In all the statements that go into a development plan, the local authority will have to show how it complies with the guidelines set down by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The powers of local authorities to refuse planning permission to applicants who have been convicted of serious breaches of planning legislation are strengthened under this Bill. In addition, the use of e-planning will be improved and made more widely available. In this day and age, we need a greater use of e-planning which will make the planning code more efficient and sustainable in the long run.

I welcome the Bill and congratulate my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, on introducing it. It is substantial and important legislation that will ensure proper planning for years to come. We must put the past behind us and hope that from here on, once the Bill is enacted, we will see the right kind of planning in this country.

One reason the people voted in such large numbers in favour of the treaty was because they see Ireland’s economic future as bound up with our continued membership of the European Union. They are very aware of the critical role the European Central Bank is playing in keeping our banks afloat. There are also expectations concerning the role of the European Union in helping us to tackle other deep-seated economic problems, including the growing level of unemployment. In the coming years this will be a major issue for the public. I hope there is a good deal of fresh thinking within the Council of Ministers and other European institutions regarding a co-ordinated European effort to try to stimulate economic activity and the accompanying employment or job creation opportunities. If there is no such attempt and if individual member states simply look after their own populations, real opportunity for economies of scale in terms of large infrastructure projects will be missed.

In addition, we must pursue the stimulation of more economic activity through the full implementation of the services directive. The directive may help many environmental companies which wish to deliver services in other member states to do so. However, the framework must be in place for European-wide co-operation in the emerging area of economic opportunity, that is, the green economy. If this is to take place we must consider common training standards for green collar jobs and common accreditation systems and we must ensure the services directive is fully and effectively rolled out. We must ensure also that infrastructural projects are undertaken. We need a co-ordinated European approach. We require a stimulus package that is genuinely European rather than each member state putting in its own funding into the pot and reserving it for its own population. Major benefits could be derived from that and I hope the Minister of State will carry this issue forward and raise it at the Council of Ministers.

The incorporation of the Lisbon treaty provisions into domestic legislation is a formality but, as others have mentioned, a number of issues are worth highlighting. The key provision in the Bill is the update of the European Communities Act 1972 for a number of reasons. First, the Union will have legal personality. In other words, it will be a subject of international law following the ratification of the Lisbon treaty, which means this part of the European Communities Act needs to be updated. Once the legislation is adopted, laws made by the Union, which has effectively been founded anew by the Lisbon treaty, will have the same force and effect as those made by the Union, as established and altered by the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties and so on.

The exception relating to the European Court of Justice is included in the legislation. Section 2 gives the laws of the EU pre-eminence over domestic law. A great deal of misinformation was put out about this during the Lisbon treaty campaign. That has been the position in all previous treaties and this means the European Court of Justice will have authority to make final determinations in disputes between member states and the rights to make final interpretations of EU law, to review the legality of EU law or any measures taken by a European body and to rule on the adequacy of the member states’ transpositions of EU measures into domestic law. Ireland has felt the impact of this on a number of occasions. The treaty states the court will not have jurisdiction with respect to the provisions of the Common Foreign and Security Policy or acts adopted on the basis of provisions and the Bill reiterates that exclusion.

The issue of Oireachtas oversight is important. Section 7 provides that the Houses of the Oireachtas can exercise oversight over the changes proposed in the Lisbon treaty to legislative procedures, which are complicated by the ordinary procedure, the simplified procedure and the passerelle clause, to which Sinn Féin referred frequently during the referendum campaign. The Houses of the Oireachtas has a role in blocking these changes if they do not believe they are in the country’s interest.

European Union Bill 2009: Second Stage (Resumed).

On the issue of subsidiarity, section 7(3) provides that either House can adopt a resolution to prevent a particular EU legislative measure if it believes it is in breach of the principle of subsidiarity. The Seanad could have an independent role in this regard. If the proposed process of reform led to the House taking on a role scrutinising legislation without having to consult the Lower House, we could pass a resolution to block an EU measure if we believed it was in breach of the principle of subsidiarity. I welcome this important measure.

It is important we learn from the mistakes of the previous referendum campaign. An editorial in The Irish Times this morning states that the Government engaged in sleepwalking during the last campaign. Perhaps that is a bit strong but we must recognise that the campaign could have been much more proactive. In the Millward Brown survey carried out after the last campaign, 42% of those who voted “No” said they did so because they did not know enough. As governments provide political leadership and see the need for the European Union and for greater European integration in the challenging global environment in which we find ourselves, they have a responsibility, having negotiated and signed up to treaties and looked after the interests of their own member states, to sell them properly to the population at large.

In the forthcoming referendum campaign we have a second opportunity to provide clear and persuasive information to the public about the Lisbon treaty. The Minister has made a good start with the White Paper that has been published. We must provide clear and accessible information. Unfortunately, the wording of the amendment to the Constitution is quite technical and many members of the public will find it impossible to make sense of it. Thus, the campaign preceding the vote on that amendment will need to simplify the issues at stake so that people are in no doubt about what treaty contains, what its strengths are and so on.

At this morning’s meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs we mentioned that the Department of Foreign Affairs should prepare rebuttals to the false arguments we know will be raised by those on the other side. It is important that where legally inaccurate points are made we are able to rebut them simply. It will be helpful for all of us who will be out campaigning in favour of the treaty that we have those simply worded rebuttals available to us.

People will say there is no difference between this treaty and the one they voted on last time around. Essentially, that is true; there is no difference to the treaty. However, a number of very solid legal guarantees secured by the Irish Government have been attached to the treaty. This shows that the issues of concern to Irish people which caused them to hesitate or vote against the treaty have been addressed in a clear and legally unambiguous fashion. In sensitive areas such as our traditional policy of military neutrality, the ability to set our own corporate taxes, the right to life, education and the family, Ireland’s autonomy, independence and sovereignty have been protected. We have legally binding conclusions to that effect and the European Council decision that contains those guarantees will be registered with the UN once the treaty is ratified and will form part of a protocol in the future, which is positive.

Now that the Irish concerns have been addressed and we have solid legal guarantees, we need to consider what is good for Europe and not just what is good for Ireland. This is important in the global environment in which we find ourselves. When the Secretary General of the United Nations spoke to us yesterday, he talked about the multiple crises the world is facing at the moment. There are a number of serious challenges facing the international community. As a member of the Green Party I would say one of these major challenges is climate change and the threat of catastrophic consequences if we do not begin to address this issue urgently at a national level. In another ten or 20 years’ time people will ask how there could have been such inaction. The European Union has provided important global leadership on this issue and it needs to provide further leadership, but we need to empower it to do this by signing up to international treaties on climate change that will set a high standard for us in terms of reducing our emissions and encouraging other major international players to do so as well.

We are all aware that the global economy is in a precarious state and we need a new system of international financial regulation. We need to empower the European Union to sit at the table with other major players and agree a fairer and better regulated international system than has existed to date. The United Nations must also be reformed. We are all aware it is badly in need of reform so that it more adequately represents the international community but also so that it promotes the progressive values the EU and other powers have tried to promote at an international level for many years.

We need a fairer international trade system. Given that it is the largest single trading area world, the EU is in a position to exercise major influence in terms of improving and reforming the international trading system. International terrorism is another major problem. To promote peace internationally, the European Union needs to be empowered to address those issues alongside other major international powers.

We need a strong Europe and we must recognise that collective decision making is no longer a matter of choice but one of necessity. We need, as Irish people, to empower the European Union to become a more effective player at an international level. That is what the treaty of Lisbon is all about. Now that our national and domestic concerns have been addressed through solid legal guarantees, we need to consider what is good for Europe and how we can build a stronger and better Europe. The Lisbon treaty is an important aspect of this.

I have one or two recommendations for the Minister. One aspect of the democratic deficit in the European Union is the lack of information. As politicians and elected representatives, we need to do something to avoid having a crash course in European affairs every time we have a referendum campaign on a European treaty. A permanent EU information service should be set up in every EU member state. This is something member state governments will need to agree to. It is not something the European institutions can do themselves. The Irish Government should promote this actively because we have had the experience of so many difficult popular referendums in which we come face to face with a lack of citizen engagement and lack of information about the European Union.

The other thing we should promote and which will not necessarily require a new treaty is a wider and deeper process of democratisation across the European Union. Put simply, it is about providing more information, consulting people more, and involving them more in decision making. Such challenges are not beyond the imagination of the brightest and the best within the European Union. We must find a way of promoting greater democracy within the EU because if we do not, we will find it increasingly difficult, even with some of the mechanisms within the Lisbon treaty, to get popular support and acceptance of some of the decisions and changes that may be made in the future, especially if people do not fully understand the reasons for them and the context in which they are made. As a country that has struggled with its own referendums in terms of trying to persuade the public of the advantages and merits of various European treaties, we should promote this.

Will the Minister consider again the recommendations of the Sub-Committee on Ireland’s Future in the European Union, of which I was a member, and which sat last November and December? It came up with a series of important recommendations that would help give the Houses of the Oireachtas a much more proactive role in terms of the overall European decision-making process. It is through our national Parliament that we will engage the people of this country to a much greater extent in terms of what is happening, what is being decided and what is being debated at European level. The recommendations made were the subject of a lot of discussion, had cross-party support and were set out very clearly in the report. I would hate to see it sitting on a shelf as, unfortunately, tends to happen to the conclusions of many committees that are set up.

It was an important committee. Its recommendations, now that we are examining once again how to try to ratify the Lisbon treaty, are very timely. I ask the Minister to re-visit the recommendations, given that they have cross-party support, and ensure they are implemented as speedily as possible, because it is only through “Europeanising” the activities of the Parliament that we will help to address the very serious democratic deficit which confronts us every time we try to ratify a European treaty in this country.