I have received notice from Senator Jennifer Murnane O'Connor that, on the motion for the Commencement of the House today, she proposes to raise the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Health to address the issue of waiting lists for chemotherapy treatment in Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital, Crumlin.

I have also received notice from Senator Tim Lombard of the following matter:

The need for the Minster for Justice and Equality to provide an update on the reopening of the Garda station in Ballinspittle, County Cork.

I have also received notice from Senator Maura Hopkins of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Justice and Equality to provide an update on the provision of Garda resources in Tarmonbarry, County Roscommon.

The matters raised by Senators Murnane O’Connor and Lombard are suitable for discussion and will be taken now. I regret that I have had to rule out of order the matter submitted by Senator Hopkins on the grounds that the Minister has no official responsibility in the matter.

The Order of Business is No. 1, statements on Project 2040 and transport matters, to be taken at 12.45 p.m. and conclude not later than 3 p.m., with the contributions of group spokespersons not to exceed eight minutes each and those of all other Senators not to exceed five minutes each and the Minister to be given not less than five minutes to reply to the debate; No. 2, Thirty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution (Repeal of offence of publication or utterance of blasphemous matter) Bill 2018 - all Stages, to be taken at 3 p.m., with the time allocated to group spokespersons on Second Stage not to exceed six minutes each and to all other Senators not to exceed four minutes each, the Minister to be given not less than five minutes to reply and Committee and Remaining Stages to be taken immediately thereafter; and No. 3, motion re statement for the information of voters on the Thirty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution (Repeal of offence of publication or utterance of blasphemous matter) Bill 2018, to be discussed in conjunction with the debate on Second Stage but not to be taken until Report and Final Stages of the Bill have concluded. It will be taken without debate.

I thank the Leader for outlining the business of the day. I ask him for an urgent debate on the Scally report and bring it forward as soon as possible, hopefully next week. While I could propose an amendment to the Order of Business, I am unsure whether that is relevant to next week, as we are talking about the Order of Business today. I wish to propose that Members debate the report with the upmost urgency.

Is Senator Horkan proposing an amendment to the Order of Business? I am unsure.

I can propose an amendment to the Order of Business if that brings about a review more quickly. It may not be possible today. Ideally, I would propose an amendment to the Order of Business today, but if it was not possible to do so, that it be done as soon as possible.

The Senator is threatening that if it is not brought in next week, he might do that next week.

I am trying to indicate to the Leader that I am always flexible and willing to help in delivery but I seek a debate on the matter as soon as possible. If the Leader is not forthcoming, I expect he probably will be, we may have to propose an amendment to the Order of Business. It is proposed for now and I will await the Leader's response.

Brexit is getting closer and closer. It is now two years and three months since the referendum vote; we are six months away from the final deal. Theresa May still says she does not want to delay it. There is no more talk of transition. The issue becomes more critical by the hour. Yesterday, there was what has been termed an informal summit and there will be a lunch of the EU 27 without the UK today. With every day that passes, it seems there is another complication. A new commentary has come out from the airport authorities discussing the catastrophe that will befall the aviation sector among the EU 27 and the UK if a deal on aviation-related security and the treatment of passengers between the EU 27 and the UK is not arrived at. This is of particular interest to us as we often use the UK as a transit point en route to other cities. I did so myself this week. It is important that we have a deal on Brexit. The language from the Taoiseach and Tánaiste is far more pessimistic than it was, although to be fair, it is probably more pragmatic and realistic. I ask the Leader to bring in the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade as soon as possible to update the House on where we are going. We see it in the newspapers but it is important that we have a debate here where we can discuss it and tease out the issues. The Border seems to continue to be a very challenging issue in terms of whether it is a land border, sea border or there being no border or whether Northern Ireland is in or out of some sort of special regulatory arrangement. We need regulatory alignment in respect of our food sector, among other areas.

I will follow Senator Ardagh's example yesterday by raising the matter of BusConnects, which was debated in a Private Members' motion in the Lower House yesterday. It is a matter of great concern. Much of the plan is very good, such as the 90-minute transfer to connect between Luas, DART and Dublin Bus, which is excellent. There is also the investment in infrastructure and in more buses. I appreciate it is only a draft proposal and that we, as Members of the Oireachtas, will meet representatives of the National Transport Authority later today. Many bus routes serve a valid purpose. They are direct routes, sometimes from certain areas to colleges or hospitals, which will involve people connecting. For people, especially those who are elderly or not particularly agile, getting off one bus and having to connect to another, being obliged to queue or perhaps missing that connection and being obliged to wait, are matters of concern. The devil is in the detail. Transport related matters will be discussed later. BusConnects is a matter that concerns many parties. Fine Gael as a party is concerned about it, Fianna Fáil has held many public meetings in Dublin on the matter and it is something we need to examine. We should have time to talk about that specifically, separate from the debate today. Each time the Minister, Deputy Ross, comes before this House, he tends to speak for a long time initially - he might not do so today - there are a certain number of contributions from Members and then the Minister has a very short time to respond, which is usually not sufficient.

I ask the Leader to schedule the debate.

I want to support another transport matter. Cyclists.ie has called for 10% of the land transfer budget to be spent on cycling. In fact, a discussion is taking place in Buswells Hotel that will be followed by a presentation.

I ask the Leader to invite the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government to the House to discuss affordable housing because the qualifying criteria differ depending on the local authority. We do not have an affordable housing scheme. Anybody who earns in excess of €42,000 will not qualify for affordable housing and, certainly in Dublin, that level of income is not sufficient to buy a home. We need to analyse the difference in house prices around the country. Perhaps we should allow for a greater threshold that would allow people to qualify for affordable housing in more expensive areas, particularly in the Dublin region.

I thank the Leader for his attention and ask him to comment on the amendment.

I second my colleague's request that the Dr. Scally report be discussed at the earliest possible date. I do not seek an amendment to today's Order of Business but I ask the Leader to place the debate on the Order of Business at the earliest opportunity next week.

This morning, two of the most beautiful little children I ever saw in my life are sitting in wheelchairs in the AV room but they have a death sentence hanging over them because they are two of 25 people who suffer from spinal muscular atrophy, SMA II. I shall not pretend to know anything about the disease. However, a clinician and a pharmacist are in the AV Room and they have informed people that there is a drug that will arrest the disease and increase the life expectancy of these children. I was impressed by a little nine-year old girl who made a presentation. I am a grandfather and found her words heartbreaking. We should give whatever money is necessary. Lack of money is a matter close to my heart. Day after day, we receive emails about pre-budget presentations, which is a load of bloody nonsense because the budget is well sorted at this stage. Making presentations now that seek adjustments to the budget is a nonsense and they are simply a PR stunt. The kids with SMA II are not engaged in a PR stunt. I invite anybody who does not believe what I am saying to go to the AV room to meet them and their parents. The presentation is the most heartbreaking I have heard in the Oireachtas in a long time. There are only 25 sufferers nationally. I do not know whether my colleague, Senator Reilly, is in a position to comment on the matter and I will not test his knowledge of same. If there is drug therapy available, then, for God's sake, let us spend whatever money is necessary to provide same.

I commend the Members of this House and the Lower House who attended the parade for respect and loyalty that took place yesterday for the Defence Forces. I thank my colleague, Senator McFadden, for mentioning the march here as part of her Commencement debate yesterday.

As we have heard about the White Paper forever and about everything and anything under the sun, I have a question for the Leader. Will the Government publish the submission that was made to the Public Service Pay Commission? We need to see the submission in order that we can assess the outcome when the final report is published. I make my request because the march was attended by 2,500 veterans. They have put their lives on the line not just for this country but also for peace. Yesterday, my colleague, Declan Power, read out the names of the people from this country who have lost their lives serving the Defence Forces and the people of this country. Will the Leader to ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence to publish the submission to the commission as a matter of urgency, or at least circulate it to Members of this House?

To the best of my knowledge, Senator Horkan did not formally propose an amendment to the Order of Business. He made a proposal that was seconded by Senator Craughwell but it was not a formal proposal to amend the Order of Business, as I understand it.

That is correct.

I have just come from Buswells Hotel where cyclists.ie is presenting its pre-budget submission. As a Senator from Waterford, I have seen the benefits of cycling. The Waterford greenway has been an absolute game-changer in Waterford in tourism and encouraging local people to cycle. Everyone knows that cycling not only reduces emissions, thus helping Ireland to achieve its climate targets; it also improves one's health.

Cyclists.ie wants 10% of Ireland's land transport budget to be spent on cycling this year. It is critical that we, as a nation, support this request. My colleagues in Fianna Fáil have put forward a good policy on cycling. It is incumbent on every Member to take read the policy as it is progressive. The Green Party has harped on about investing in cycling for many years. It is critical that we, as a nation, invest in cycling promotion and infrastructure. I know of a chap from Waterford who used to cycle to Tramore beach every summer and is now in his eighties. He bought himself an electric bike this year and his life has changed as a result. In latter years, he found the manual bike to be tough going but his electric bike has given him the opportunity to cycle 12 km to the beach. Investment in infrastructure and cycling is, therefore, critical. I ask the Minister for Finance, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, and the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Shane Ross, to get real and join the 21st century by supporting cyclists.ie's request for 10% of the land transport budget to be spent on cycling this year.

I congratulate Ms Liadh Ní Riada, MEP, who is the presidential candidate nominated by Sinn Féin. I thank her for agreeing to represent my party in the election. She is a wonderful, formidable woman who has overcome an awful lot in her life. The one thing that appeals to me about her is not only that she is formidable, courageous and all of those things that I admire in any human being, but she is standing forward. I would be proud to have her as our President. She would be a president for all of the people and nobody would be left behind in a country where she was president. I wish her well in her campaign and I also wish the other presidential hopefuls well, including Senator Joan Freeman. It takes a lot of courage to put one's name forward and I appeal to the media not to engage in the viciousness and nonsense that usually goes on, particularly in the presidential election race. I urge the media to give us a chance to get to know the candidates and see what they stand for and believe in. A little fairness would go a long way.

Like Senator Craughwell, I want to raise the issue of SMA II, as I met the families at the presentation in the AV Room. SMA is a degenerative disease. It is the number one cause of death in infants and causes deterioration in muscle tone and strength, usually ending in premature death. There has been a breakthrough with a new drug called Spinraza, which dramatically decreases the loss of the motor neurone function for patients with SMA. Spinraza is the first drug to be approved for treating the disorder. In May 2017, the European Medicines Agency granted market authorisation for this drug and, in October 2017, the HSE received a reimbursement application. There was great disappointment among the SMA community when, in December 2017, the National Centre for Pharmaeconomics completed a health technology assessment of Spinraza and did not recommend the reimbursement at the price submitted. The assessment was considered by the HSE drugs group in May 2018 but no decision has yet been arrived at.

I ask the Leader to bring our concerns about this issue to the Minister for Health and to ask him to speed up the process. Unfortunately, many of the people affected by this do not have the luxury of time. It is a travesty and contradicts the scientific evidence of the merits of the drug that it has not been approved for reimbursement. It has been approved in 19 other countries. This happens so many times with these drugs for rare diseases. Those living in this country - the children we met in the AV room - have the same rights as those living in other countries, and they deserve to get the drug as well. It is not down to an issue of cost because if we can give charitable status to foreign vulture funds, which make billions out of this country, we can surely make these drugs available to a small number of children and people affected.

I welcome the Leader back and hope he had a very productive summer. We will have a very intense period in the lead up to Christmas. I am aware the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, and the Minister of State, Deputy English, have both been in this House in relation to housing and related issues. I am still of the view that we need to have a further constructive debate on this issue. I hope to see proposals from the Government on short-term lettings. While such proposals will not fix the housing crisis, they will very quickly put at least 1,000 additional units on the rental market. It may also have a positive impact in reducing rents in our main urban areas. The record across the world is a reduction of between 1% to 4% when short-term lettings are regulated. I hope to see these proposals very shortly and will welcome them.

The Government constantly refers to this as being a supply issue that has to be dealt with. An area I have repeatedly raised is Poolbeg West, the former Irish Glass Bottle site, where approximately 3,500 units could be developed over the short, medium and long term. It was very disappointing that An Bord Pleanála could not make a decision in relation to this site in early August because of lack of resources.

The Government has sent much additional work in the direction of An Bord Pleanála, and this is tying up and delaying planning decisions, which are badly needed right across the country. We allowed the number of inspectors to slip to as low as four or five. It has recently been brought up to 13 but now all planning proposals of more than 100 units are going directly to An Bord Pleanála. It needs to be resourced properly to deal with the level of work going in that direction. Otherwise we are going to see delay after delay regarding housing developments. We will need to see at least one additional staff member to do this work in a timely fashion. This is an effort to highlight where we can improve the supply element of this issue. It is not acceptable when we see a development that could supply 3,500 units delayed in An Bord Pleanála because of a resources issue. It should not be acceptable to the Government and we need speedy action on this.

I am aware Senator Grace O'Sullivan dealt with the issue of cycling and I am not going to go over it. I ask the Leader for a proper debate on transport. We need some proper ground rules. The particular Minister who attends talks out the debate and we do not get answers. That is as frustrating for Fine Gael Senators as it is for Fianna Fáil Senators and for everyone else. We need proper interaction on transport when the Minister comes in. There has to be sufficient time for the Minister to address those points. I am aware it is difficult but it would be helpful to all in the House if we had a discussion with the Minister and proper engagement when he comes to the House rather than talking out issues.

On one famous occasion in the House, the Minister spoke at length about the Rugby World Cup and addressed no other issue raised by Senators. We have challenges in relation to the Metro line, BusConnects, cycling and pedestrians across the country. We need that level of engagement with the Minister. I know that it will be difficult for the Leader. It is a big job but I believe he is up to it. We have to have that discussion with the Minister and to try to get him to show a little bit of courtesy to this House.

I also want to raise the issue of BusConnects. I am aware the Minister will be here after the Order of Business and hope that in his address on Project Ireland 2040 this issue will be a central part of it. This goes to the core of what good governance is about in planning. I do not wish to be critical of anybody but there is a sense among Dubliners that this plan seems to reflect many other cities internationally that were built on grid systems, which ours was not.

There is tremendous concern in Fingal, particularly in Skerries, Balbriggan, Rush and Lusk, about the express bus service which gets people into town very efficiently and very effectively through the Dublin Port tunnel. While we await the development of metro, a critical part of infrastructure which I am sure the Minister will address this afternoon, the issue of BusConnects needs proper consultation. I know the project group is here today to discuss matters with Members and I hope to get to meet it. The idea, however, of people having to get three buses in order to reach their destination in town and the disruption of train services, some of which I understand is due to the loss of three trains during peak hours in Portmarnock, are an indication that greater consideration needs to be given to the services people already have. There is the unfortunate history of this not being properly co-ordinated, with buses arriving after the train leaves and vice versa and with people being left hanging around. There are more specific instances that I hope to raise with the Minister this afternoon.

I agree with others who spoke about cycling and the need to spend more money and expend more energy providing safe cycling lanes for people. Many more people would cycle longer distances to work if it was safe to do so. I come back to the issue of the greenways. I hope the Minister for Finance will reflect the need for further investment in the greenways in the budget. In the north Fingal area where we have a coastline with six or seven train stations and the whole of Dublin city on our doorstep, we could avail of safe cycling through very nice coastal greenways to the benefit of all concerned. We will be here with the Minister this afternoon to hear what he has to say and I hope he will address these serious issues.

Like previous speakers, I support the families outside Leinster House protesting to get their children the drug Spinraza. It is crucial that the Minister steps in and delivers this drug to save these children's lives.

I take the opportunity to congratulate team Ireland, which claimed the first ever world championship medal when it won eventing silver at the World Equestrian Games. This is a major achievement made very special for my own county because Sam Watson from Carlow was on the team. His father John won an individual silver medal four decades ago. Sam and his team are celebrating the fact that the Irish eventing team is the first Irish team in any sport to qualify for the Tokyo Olympic Games 2020. They arrived home last night and were a sight for sore eyes in Dublin Airport. There was no luck involved. It was the product of seriously hard work and a battle for funding for the sport, funding we should be able to provide. We are always saying we need money for this and for that, but when we have such sports people who work extremely hard and win internationally, we should enable them to go on winning, to make history, to set records and to have the world talk about our little country for good reasons. I want to say well done to the team and wish it well.

I was very disappointed this week to read that IDA Ireland has only made three visits to Carlow this year. In the south-east region, it has made no meaningful visits at all, unless one counts Waterford, which received 14 visits.

The south east needs investment. We need jobs, infrastructure and to get more IDA Ireland visits. We must stop the concentration on cities and spread businesses. We are a tiny island and we should be able to attract businesses to any part of Ireland, not only places five minutes from an airport. I am asking the Leader for another debate. We talked about the south east previously but we need another debate to know why the recovery is not as quick in getting to the likes of Carlow and other areas as it is in getting from Dublin to Waterford. Can we have a debate on that issue? Another debate is needed on why IDA Ireland is not paying more visits to towns in rural areas, such as Carlow, and other urban areas that need IDA Ireland investment.

I will begin by extending this House's sympathy to the families of those who lost their lives in the storm. One victim died in Galway and the second victim was from my own county, Armagh. I take the opportunity to extend our sympathies.

I certainly believe the decision by the ploughing association to cancel Wednesday at the ploughing championships was the right one. It was about the protection of people's lives and property. We cannot underestimate the significance of this event and the impact this closure will have on both the association and the people and participants at the ploughing championships. The figures for the first day show there were 98,500 people in attendance and it certainly was set up to be a very successful week in Tullamore. That being said, we need to monitor the situation. I encourage everyone to support the remaining days at the ploughing championships. It is a huge dent to their ambitions to lose one day, even though that day is being replaced by the addition of Friday to the calendar. I would like to send out a message to the general public and encourage everyone to support the initiative and the event. It is certainly the showcase event for the agrifood industry. It is attended by people from both Northern Ireland and the Republic, but also from England, Scotland and Wales, and international visitors. It is a hugely important showcase for the industry.

In addition, I am aware, listening to news reports this morning, that there are further warnings of imminent storm conditions. It would be prudent to be aware that these further high winds and adverse weather are on the way. I credit and congratulate the Government and the Minister for trying to communicate this message to the general public in a timely manner in advance of the previous set of storms. There were tweets from the Minister on a regular basis warning people to protect themselves and their property when the storm was about to hit. There are concerns that we need to have a concerted effort from everyone, through the media channels and elected representatives, to alert people that we may be in for a turbulent spell of weather over the weekend and that it is in everyone's interest to protect themselves, protect people and protect property.

I read with much joy that the English FA, the Irish FA, the Welsh FA, the Scottish FA and the FAI are looking at bidding for the 2030 World Cup. It would be a five-way bid. This is hugely significant, especially after we were not successful in getting the Rugby World Cup. In 2002, we were looking at the European Championships for the island. This sends out a signal that we are able to work together. Yesterday, I flew from Manchester. Just in front of me, there were officials and I did not realise they were coming to Dublin to discuss this bid. As a Parliament, we should give this bid our fullest support because this is cross-border working, on the island of Ireland and between the two islands. I will be attending the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly plenary meeting next week and I intend to raise the efforts to get this significant 2030 World Cup for these islands.

There is also Brexit and we must avoid a hard border. There is the Labour Party conference in Liverpool next week and the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham the following week. There is goodwill on both sides. There are open exchanges happening in Salzburg but 18 October is vital. I hope that we will be able to come to some solution but we have to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. I wish all the negotiators, the Taoiseach and many others, all the best in the coming weeks because this will have a huge influence on what happens on the island of Ireland.

I raise the issue of migration and ask for a debate on the migration crisis across Europe. During the summer, I was part of a delegation from the Council of Europe that attended SOS children's camps in Athens. We saw the wonderful work that is going on there but we were conscious that the children who had accessed these camps were the lucky ones and a small minority. It is shocking to realise that there are thousands of children effectively detained in detention centres across Europe at present. Only this morning, I saw reports on Euronews about a camp on the island of Lesbos called Moria. It has a capacity for 3,000 people but currently has 9,000 in the camp. The conditions are appalling - no hot water for women with new babies, dozens of people for any one toilet, no proper facilities, no education facilities, no support. With winter approaching, they are in makeshift camps. One has to wonder, when one hears a lot of guff all the time about European values, where are these European values for these children. It is a huge failing.

I do not blame the Greek Government. The Greek Government has been swamped by the crisis. All of us can agree it is countries such as our own that have not done enough. It struck me on the visit to the SOS camps that regardless of whether my colleagues are on the right or, like myself, on the left, we all agreed that this was appalling and that Government should do more. The Government's target of 4,000 is just not adequate. The reality is 3,000 people have come to date. Would it not be wonderful if we could have a debate on this topic, agree on a cross-party basis and send a clear message to the Government that we must do more to bring more people to this country, to build a new future for them, and in our way show more than mere talk and do something concrete to help address this appalling crisis?

This morning I was at the Ombudsman's office for the progress report on "A Good Death". I am happy to say there has been major progress and development in end of life care in Irish acute hospitals. There was a group from Malawi present and they were following the Ombudsman for a week or two to see how he works. Their biggest concern was where they would get food and clean water. I have always felt that if the Irish people metaphorically got on an aeroplane and landed in Calcutta for a month, we might find out a different definition of poverty, and if we went off to Japan we might find out a different definition of manners.

However, the progress has been good. One of the big issues the Ombudsman points out to us is our lack of communication; that we do not communicate tragedy and bad news well, and also our lack of language. We have changed our language now. Nobody dies in Ireland; we just pass, like kidney stones, or disappear into a hedge. There is no such thing. We do not hold on to the ritual of that. He also pointed out the space and place within hospitals. It was good. The Leader started this, as then Chairman of the Joint Committee on Health and Children many years ago, and I got the opportunity to look at this area. It will happen to 100% of us and we should really take it very seriously.

We have had protests all over the past week and during the summer about the closure of certain post offices that had to close and certain ones that did not have to close in villages and towns around the country and about the decline of rural Ireland. I would like to invite the Minister back here. The reason I want him to come is I think this has more to do with a banking system. I am very interested in social banking, as the Senators will be aware, and community banking. There is wind of high-level negotiations between the top cats in the post office and Ulster Bank. The banks play agency roles within the post office. That is how we pay our bills and there is nothing wrong with that. I refer to a commercial pillar bank that will be brought in under the auspices of An Post, outside community and social banking, and all the profits will go to it. The reason Bank of Ireland does not want to get into the post offices is because it got into the post offices in England and it will take billions of pounds to get the bank out, which the British people are trying to do. I would like the Minister to come in to find out whether all of these rumours are true. This will be the biggest election issue.

The new poor, no competition, huge percentages, huge APRs and rural Ireland are the election issues. I will not be standing for election, but I am just communicating this to my colleagues here. I would like to have the Minister in to tell us if it is true that he is having high-level negotiations with the awfulness and appallingness of Ulster Bank and who put USC on everything we earn and a levy on every part of our pensions and every bit of money that comes in from the work we do. This is the banks together working under the auspices of sheer incompetence and greed. I would like to know whether that is true.

I wish to raise a housing matter that is not often talked about, namely, the progress that has been made in the provision of student accommodation. My understanding is that more that 5,000 fully operational student beds have been brought into use over the last 12 months, with a further 4,000 being built and approximately 7,000 going through the planning process. This is part of the long-term planning we need to do. One of the major complaints I have heard about planning in this country is that we build one part of the jigsaw and then come back to try to build the other part ten years later. What needs to go hand in hand with the expansion of universities is the development of accommodation. The Ministers of Housing, Planning and Local Government in the past three or four years have, to be fair, encouraged the building of student accommodation and it is important that this continues to get that support.

I would also like to briefly touch on an issue I raised previously, one I was glad to see dealt with at a recent conference of coroners. This is the matter of unidentified bodies in this country and the fact there is no central database to record them. If a body is discovered in Kerry, for example, and cannot be identified, the information is kept in Kerry, in the coroner's own area. I am glad the coroners' conference recently held in Portlaoise agreed to a proposal for a centralised database, thus making information available to the authorities. In the last 12 months we had a case involving a person who had been reported missing in Dublin more than ten years ago, and a body washed up in County Louth three months later. It is only in the last 12 months that two and two were put together to establish that the body washed up was the person who had been reported missing. This kind of information needs to be available. It is important that we ask the Minister for Justice and Equality to rubber-stamp and move forward this proposal for a centralised database for all unidentified bodies. My understanding is that there are about 200 such bodies around the country and it is important that this issue be dealt with.

I would like to raise the issue of insurance costs and the crippling impact that these costs are having on business and consumers alike. Year on year, consumers can see huge increases in their premiums and it has now reached the stage where many are struggling to pay them. I appreciate that many factors contribute to the rise in insurance costs. One such factor is fraudulent claims, something on which we definitely we need to get a grip. It is unfair that someone can make a fraudulent claim and walk away from it scot-free.

A second contributory issue is that of insurance payouts, which are four and a half times higher in this country than in the United Kingdom. The average payout in Ireland amounts to €21,000, compared to only €4,000 in the United Kingdom; between €2,500 and €6,000 in Germany; and approximately €1,500 in France. I read a report recently which claimed that Ireland is the whiplash capital of Europe as apparently we have very high level of whiplash claims in this country. I always thought that many Irish people had hard necks on them but these statistics would seem to prove otherwise. The most recent statistics available to us show that whiplash accounts for approximately 80% of motor insurance claims in this country, as compared to just 3% in France. The average payout for whiplash in Ireland is €15,000, which is three times higher than in the United Kingdom and five times higher than either Italy or Spain.

I appreciate that a report has been carried out on insurance costs and recommendations made. Unfortunately we have yet to see many of those recommendations implemented. I would like the Leader to arrange for the Minister to appear before the House to advise as to where the Government stands on these recommendations. I am sure the Leader and all our constituents would agree that insurance is a serious issue and one that needs to be tackled now.

With regard to Storm Ali, I extend condolences to the families of those who tragically died in the storm. Nothing can prepare one for the shock of dealing with a loss from such a seemingly random event. There have been some criticisms of the Government, perhaps unfairly, that we were somehow unprepared for Storm Ali this week. It has been reported that the Tánaiste commented that the public was not prepared, that storm fatigue might have kicked in, and that if people do not see a red warning then they fail to sit up and take sufficient notice. At first this comment might seem almost insensitive in the circumstances, but perhaps the Tánaiste has touched on an issue here which needs to be addressed somehow. It has struck me over the last year that there has been a proliferation of yellow and orange warnings issued by Met Éireann, even during what seemed to be relatively innocuous weather events. Perhaps the public has been lulled into a false sense of security when it does not see a red warning: life is expected to go on as normal and people go to work and so on.

The fact that we have seen highly competent responses to Hurricane Ophelia and Storm Emma in the last 12 months may have also led to people mentally taking the foot off the pedal. This would seem to be connected to a succession of strange weather events. The yellow-orange-red warning system has been relatively new to us in the last 18 months or so. With climate change becoming more of an issue, perhaps we need a debate on how we are going to deal with weather events in the future. Do we need to have systems in place that do not need to be kicked in in times of emergency only? Could some further assessment be made of the current warning system to see if it can be refined or reclassified? We certainly need to have a system in place so that there be no doubt in people’s minds about the dangers of particular weather events, even at times when life must go on and we have not quite reached the threshold of being told to stay at home and batten down the hatches. Speaking of orange areas, there are no grey areas when safety is an issue. We need to look at what more we can do to ensure we all enter the mode of alertness we need if we are going to avoid unnecessary fatalities and injuries.

I pay tribute to members of the emergency services for their work during the brief storm yesterday and, of course, pass on my condolences to the families of those who tragically lost their lives.

We have heard much talk in the media and elsewhere about the housing crisis and the challenges facing this country when it comes to dealing with people who find themselves without a home, as well as the thousands in middle Ireland who cannot afford to buy a home in Dublin. We are now in the situation where a nurse and a teacher would not be in a position to buy a house in certain parts of the city, thus returning us to an era we neither want nor welcome. The solution is to build houses, and plenty of them.

There are also many other quirks, difficulties and challenges.

The absolute restriction placed on listed buildings is one of them. It is right that we respect our tradition, heritage and culture. At the same time, however, we must allow property owners to get permission to build, extend and renovate buildings regardless of whether they are listed. What is the point in having a listed building that is empty and where nothing is happening but where the owner of the building cannot afford to have something happen? The owner cannot do so because the requirements, difficulties and challenges make it so expensive to comply with the various conservation officers in local authorities. We need to have a conversation about easing the restrictions on bringing into use derelict listed buildings. It will not solve the housing crisis but it will be a part of dealing with it.

I concur with Senator Mullen in passing on the sympathy of this House to the families who suffered the tragic loss of two members in recent days. It is hard to believe such a loss could come while holidaying in such a scenic spot in Ireland.

I have two simple queries for the Leader. We tend to see many items floated in the newspapers first but they have to find their legs somewhere. The first query is on local property tax, LPT. I see a big whip being bandied around about taking the power to set local property tax from local government. I refer to the discretion in changing the tax up or down by 15%. I am curious to know if this was kite flying by the Government. The threat to take that power from local government certainly seemed to come through those natural channels. It was brought to my attention by Councillor Cormac Devlin yesterday at the Association of Irish Local Government, AILG, meeting in Mullingar and I read the piece in question afterwards. Many councillors had extreme concerns because it is one of the few hard powers that have been left with them. That is one concern and I am curious to know if the Leader knows anything about it.

Second, a document is to be released in the next couple of days with particular reference to the midlands. Some people who are city-based might not be aware of it but the Leader and many of my colleagues present from country areas - at least outside the M50 - certainly are aware of the national planning framework and its intentions for rural Ireland. I refer in particular to planning and the number of hubs and zones for development that are being examined. What is going to be done to one-off planning and even planning in towns and villages is dramatic. If the proposals under this new national planning framework come to fruition, there will be a change in the Irish way of life. When the planning proposals are fully ventilated and people are aware of what is being proposed, I believe groups involved socially in rural Ireland such as the Gaelic Athletic Association, GAA, the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, and others will be vehemently against some of them.

That is because it is going to be the death knell of rural Ireland. Anyone travelling through rural Ireland at present can see shops in villages and towns are closing in front of us. I was listening to the radio coming in this morning. I did not hear the full extent but a chap who was incapacitated and had come through an arduous journey in Ireland was speaking. I did not get the full gist of the story on RTÉ Radio 1 this morning but he mentioned how he was met with generosity in rural Ireland. He also spoke about closures in towns and villages. I suspect there will be a serious backlash in respect of the national planning framework if cognisance is not taken of rural Ireland and the people who intend to stay there and live the lives their forefathers have lived.

I thank the 16 Members of the House for their contributions on the Order of Business. I join Senators Marshall and Mullen in paying tribute to the men and women who went out yesterday and worked tirelessly to ensure that there were safe roads and safe power supplies and who were first responders. I offer my sympathy and that of the House to the bereaved families of those tragically killed yesterday in counties Galway and Antrim. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anamacha dílis.

I thank Senators Horkan and Craughwell for raising the issue of the Scally inquiry. It is an important report and the Government has committed to accepting its 50 recommendations in their entirety. The Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, spoke in the Dáil yesterday on the debate. Rather than divide the House, if Senator Horkan is agreeable - Senator Craughwell was obliged to attend another meeting - I intend to bring the Minister for Health into the House next Tuesday evening.

That is agreed.

I thank the Senator for agreeing to it. It is important to have the report debated in this House and I will endeavour to have that next Tuesday evening.

The issue of transport was raised by a number of Senators. Senators Horkan, Humphreys and Reilly raised the BusConnects consultation, which was also raised yesterday by their colleagues Senators Ardagh and Clifford-Lee. The concerns expressed by many Members in this House today have been articulated across the city of Dublin via the BusConnects consultation. The reorganisation of the bus system in Dublin is definitely exercising people's minds, not least those of public representatives but also the citizen commuters who want to see their travel experience not diminished but increased or enhanced. As I said yesterday, it is important that there be proper consultation and engagement by Dublin Bus, the Canadian consultants it has brought in, public representatives and by citizens. I welcome that-----

And the National Transport Authority.

Yes, absolutely, the NTA also. I made that point yesterday. We have a situation in my native city of Cork around the M28 where, had the NTA and the local authority engaged in a meaningful way, I believe there would not have been half the confusion that arose. It is important that people engage. In my case, I am ware that Councillor Emer Higgins, Deputies Rock and Brophy and Senator Reilly all have had public meetings on this matter. The bus redesign in the capital city is complex and, as Senator Reilly said, we cannot just go on a grid system in Dublin. It will have a profound impact and I hope we will see a positive outcome. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, will be in the House today.

I am smiling at Senator Humphreys making reference to the Minister's participation in the debate here. It was one debate where he spoke for a number of minutes on the Rugby World Cup but he has been here many times and, to be fair to the Minister, he has never shied away from debating transport matters. If we need to extend the Minister's time at the end, the House can do so if that is the request and requirement.

On the issue of cycling raised by Senators Horkan and Grace O'Sullivan, the Government has allocated €8 million to the cycling policy. There has been €100 million allocated in capital funding for cycling and walking infrastructure. In Cork, Dublin, Galway, Limerick and Waterford, €55 million has been allocated in greenways and the Government is dedicated to implementing a cycling policy and improving cycling infrastructure. In tandem with that, it is important to recognise that the reduced speed limits in our urban areas will assist cyclists, as will the legislation on the minimum passing distances, as well as a commitment to the bike scheme and cycle lanes. I agree that the overarching thrust must be and should be about increasing the amount of money to be spent on promoting cycling as an alternative to the car and public transport.

Senators Horkan, Conway and Colm Burke raised the issue of housing. The Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, will come to the House in the coming weeks to discuss the matter of housing. I will be happy to have him come to the House on that matter.

Senators Horkan and Feighan made reference to Brexit. The news today from Salzburg, while not unexpected, is nonetheless disappointing because we do not seem to have any further progress. A deal on Brexit, as we all know, is desirable and is what we want as a country. It is a very important time for us as a small island nation which will be most affected. We will be affected by Brexit, North and South. It is fair to say much has been agreed already but the issue of Ireland is the major one. I commend the Taoiseach, the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, and particularly the Tánaiste and Minister, Deputy Coveney, on their work. I commend the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the issue of Brexit and all involved. We should not forget that the status quo that exists today will not be the status quo of the future. A good deal on Brexit will not allow us to have what we have now. We need to prepare ourselves for it. It is not a case that we can click our fingers and Brexit will disappear. There will be consequences. We will feel an effect from Brexit no matter what happens. We need to condition ourselves to understand that change will occur as a consequence of Brexit. Those who think it will not are misguided. There will be profound changes as a result of Brexit. We do not agree with the vote in the United Kingdom and we will be affected the most by it. As the Minister, Deputy Creed, said recently, it is a negative net gain. There are no positives in it. We need to make ourselves aware of that.

Senator Craughwell made reference to the Defence Forces. Yesterday the Minister of State with responsibility for defence, Deputy Kehoe, was here to address Senator McFadden's Commencement matter. The Minister of State has been very proud and proactive in his defence and support of members of the Defence Forces. He has always come to the House to debate matters related to defence. That is why the Government has initiated the Public Service Pay Commission and why it is in the process of restoring pay and reversing the cuts that were introduced during the economic recession. It is fair to say the Minister of State of all the Ministers who have served in the Department understands and values the role of the Defence Forces. It is demonstrated by his visits to Army barracks and to troops overseas. That is in addition to the Minister, Deputy Coveney's, commitment in the Mediterranean. That is why the Government set up the Public Service Pay Commission. Senator Craughwell made reference to the Public Service Pay Commission's submission. If Senator Craughwell took time, he would realise that like all public sector deals that submission will be published as part of the report. When the report is published, it will be clear for all to see what has been submitted and agreed. The outcome must be to enhance the pay and conditions of members of the Defence Forces. I look forward to the report being published in due course.

Senators Craughwell and Conway-Walsh referred to the drug Spinraza and the presentation in the AV room by young people who have spinal muscular atrophy. It is a matter that is stressful for the families and the children affected. They face profound challenges that some of us here can only imagine. It is a progressive and life-limiting condition. The NCP has conducted a full pharmacoeconomic evaluation and has not recommended the reimbursement but there is an application with the HSE. I hope there will be a positive outcome in the case. I am a former Chairman of the Oireachtas health committee which held hearings on rare diseases. Perhaps a case could be made to the Minister for this drug to be considered under the orphan drugs scheme. I understand and acknowledge the stress and difficulties that arise and which these families and children face every day. I hope there will be a positive outcome. I thank the families for being here today and apologise that I could not be at the briefing this morning.

Senator Conway-Walsh raised the issue of the presidential election. I wish all candidates, of whatever hue, well, whether they are Independent, party or non-party. The local authorities are correct to invoke their powers to nominate candidates. I hope all who want to run can get a nomination to run and that we can have an election in which everyone can participate in order that they can all be part of the debate. Senator Conway-Walsh made reference to the debate. Let us have the debate whatever it contains. What we must do is ensure the election is a fair and democratic one and that it is done in a manner which is respectful of each candidate's position and personality and I hope that will happen.

Senator Murnane O'Connor referred to the success of our eventing team. I join her in congratulating our eventing team on their silver medal. It was a fantastic weekend for Irish sport. Sam Watson, Cathal Daniels and Padraig McCarthy were joined in their success by the O'Donovan brothers and Sanita Puspure in the rowing. It shows the importance of the Government's support and of our support, as a nation, in putting value on sport. Sport is a great unifier and it brings great joy. It can bring heartbreak but when we see the successes of eventing and our rowers it augurs well. I congratulate the ladies of Dublin on winning the all-Ireland ladies' football final last weekend. I am sure the Cathaoirleach will join me in congratulating Cork on winning the camogie All-Ireland.

When Senator Murnane-O'Connor comes into the House, I am not sure if she is trying to provoke me with her contributions but I remind her that nine out of every ten new jobs created in the past 12 months were outside Dublin. The Action Plan for Rural Development is committed to ensuring the economic recovery is felt throughout Ireland and the creation of rural jobs is vital in order to achieve this. In the region in which Senator Murnane-O'Connor lives and which she represents, 19,851 jobs were created last year by foreign companies. It is the third consecutive year of strong growth. We have seen more than 210,443 people employed through foreign direct investment in our country. Some people would not want any jobs or investment from abroad but 210,443 people have been employed by FDI companies in the country. In the regions, Senator Murnane O'Connor should know there was a 9% growth in the south east, where she is from, which amounts to 14,918 people in total employment. We should recognise there is employment happening and the Government is committed to the growth of the regions. It links to Senator Davitt's point. The national planning framework will be about improving the lives of people in rural Ireland. It is about ensuring rural Ireland is habitable and that people can be employed and live there. The challenge we face in terms of shops closing is not only a rural Ireland one; it is an urban problem too. It is part of the modern world in which we live. If one listened to the debate yesterday on the post office network, it is a challenge we see in our post offices that has to be faced. A similar issue arises if one looks at the banking system. I will come back to Senator O'Donnell's comments in a minute. I appeal to the banks not to take people out of the banks in any part of the country. It beggars belief that we are now going into banks where there are no tellers or staff but only a machine. It is wrong and should not be allowed to continue.

Senator Marshall raised the issue of the National Ploughing Championships and their benefits, as well as the benefits to rural Ireland. The points he made are well documented. The importance of farming and agriculture to the country is well noted by the Government and the industry is a priority for the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

I join Senator Feighan in congratulating the nations involved in the bid for the 2030 World Cup. I hope it is successful. It would be a fantastic achievement for the Football Association of Ireland, FAI, and Ireland.

Senator Gavan raised the important issue of migration, in particular in the Moria camp, about which he is correct. Where are European values when it comes to dealing with people who are displaced and dispossessed and living in migrant camps? We have a duty and an obligation to highlight the inadequacies and the anomalies in that system, but also to be a harbour of welcome for people. I congratulate the Senator for raising the matter.

I thank Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell for her work on end-of-life care. Last week, the Irish hospice movement held a number of visible events around the country concerning end-of-life care. People like Mr. Bryan Nolan deserve huge credit, praise and gratitude for the work they are doing, their language and the way in which they engage with people. The Senator is so right. I do not mean to be patronising, but it is about language and communication. I heard a nice interview on "Today with Sean O'Rourke" last week. People said that if they talked about the issue, they felt they were bringing a curse on themselves. They did not want to talk about death and end-of-life care. It is something that is before us all, as the Senator said, and we must plan for end-of-life care. I hope that the Senator's report does not just limp along-----

Or gather dust.

Or gather dust.

Dust it is, and unto dust-----

It shall return, exactly. Whether it will be on the third day or the last day, I am not sure. The image of the knots on the cover of the Senator's book reflects how we should join together as a country to have that conversation about end-of-life care.

Yesterday we had an important debate on post offices and the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment was honest in his remarks to the House. We will bring him back before the House to discuss the issue of banking. It is about the post office network expanding its range of services and its remit. I am not sure what the Minister has in mind and whether that will include community or social banking. We will have him back in due course to discuss the matter.

I join Senator Colm Burke in welcoming the increase in construction and availability of student accommodation throughout the country. The Senator is correct; we are only now playing catch-up in building student accommodation adjacent to universities and institutes of technology, which we should have done at the beginning. That is now taking place across university towns and cities.

The issue concerning coroners and a database of bodies is important. Senator Colm Burke's Bill addresses this in part, but it is something on which we need to keep a vigilant eye.

Senator Gallagher raised the issue of insurance costs. Mr. Justice Nicholas Kearns commented as chairperson of the Personal Injuries Commission that payments have gotten out of hand and that we are paying out an inordinate amount. He is perhaps right in that regard. The judicial council legislation containing guidelines for personal injuries is a priority for the Government. We need to have a conversation on personal injury payouts. The Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Michael D'Arcy, has been instrumental and has come into the House and updated us on the cost of insurance and the work of the cost of insurance working group, which has published six quarterly reports. Of the 71 deadlines, 58 were met. One of the key actions was the delivery of the final report of the commission, which I hope will be the launch pad for further reform. The implementation of that recommendation should have an impact on the awarding of personal injury damages in the future. Moreover, the Central Statistics Office, CSO, data for August 2018 show that motor insurance premia have decreased by 20% since their peak in 2016. They are still too high, but we are taking action.

Senator Mullen raised the issue of Storm Ali and notifications. It is an interesting discussion to have. The Tánaiste made reference to fatigue. Perhaps it is now the case that when people hear a storm warning, they do not take it too seriously. I heard an interview on the radio earlier in which someone said that the only status red alert was for part of County Mayo because that was Met Éireann's information. To be fair to Met Éireann, it takes its role seriously. The national directorate for fire and emergency management has monitored the weather situation with Met Éireann and its members met on Tuesday to assess the impact of the storm. Some 17 counties were issued with a status orange storm alert. That came into effect on Tuesday evening and ended at 1 p.m. yesterday. It is worth noting that the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government only convenes the national emergency co-ordination group for severe weather events on the advice given to him. The Taoiseach was criticised for being at the front and centre of the response to Storm Ophelia. When he was not there for Storm Ali, he was also criticised. I do not say that Senator Mullen is doing that. It is important that we have moved to a coded alert system. People should take note of it. The important point is that we should always take notice of what is being asked of us. Again, we offer our sympathies to the families bereaved during the storm.

Senator Conway raised the issue of housing. The points he makes are valid.

Senator Davitt is flying kites regarding property tax. I have not heard that powers are being taken away, but I would be happy to come back to him on the matter.

I thank the Members for the contributions. If Senator Horkan is happy, I will not amend the Order of Business. I will have the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government before the House next Tuesday.

There is no formal amendment.

I am happy to be back in the Seanad for this debate and look forward to hearing Senators' thoughts on the range of projects to be rolled out in the transport, tourism and sporting sectors over the lifetime of the national development plan, NDP, which forms part of project Ireland 2040.

In June this year, I launched Linking People and Places, the name given to the transport, tourism and sport elements of the national development plan. At the launch, I was accompanied by Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell, who generously gave her of time to lead a panel discussion on the topic. Something particularly interesting which the Senator expertly drew from the panel members was the connections across the sectors.

It is that emphasis on the bigger picture that Project Ireland 2040 seeks to focus upon. We need to focus on the bigger picture because Ireland is changing and will continue to change during the next ten years and beyond. We will have more people, more jobs, more commuters and more tourists.

It is not just Ireland but Europe and the world are changing too. Some of these changes are positive; others are challenging, but either way we cannot ignore them. That is the reason we need to plan now for the challenges of tomorrow. However, it is not just about tomorrow. We already face challenges today in meeting the demand for public transport services, in improving the roads network, in providing the facilities needed for increasing numbers of tourists and in encouraging and funding greater participation in sport.

Some of these challenges stem from reduced investment during the period of economic and financial crisis. The first priority is to return to what is called the "steady-state" funding level, which is the investment levels we need to ensure the services and infrastructure we have today are appropriately maintained. Then we need to address the challenges we face because of our growing economy, such as the problems with congestion in cities and towns and capacity issues on public transport services. We need to lay the groundwork for the future and start planning and delivering the projects we need for the future in an integrated way. That is what we are seeking to achieve during the lifetime of this national development plan, NDP.

We will do this by linking people and places in the national, international and social spheres. In linking cities and regions, we have ambitious plans for both public transport and the road network. A greener and expanded public transport network will add greatly to the choice and experience of the travelling public, improve quality of life, ease congestion in cities and help to deliver a low carbon society.

We have already started to increase the size of bus fleets and expand services. We are planning to invest in greener and cleaner buses and roll out BusConnects across all major cities, starting in Dublin. Many Senators who are interested in BusConnects in their home areas have asked questions and I am very happy to address this. I think it is more appropriate if I do it at the end because I will have the advantage of having heard what most of the Members have to say.

BusConnects will help to develop sustainable, living cities for families and communities and will support economic growth and jobs. It will deliver new and improved bus services and corridors, faster journey times, next generation ticketing and cycle lanes to remove conflict between road traffic and cyclists. I acknowledge the difficulties that people have encountered in their areas in some cases and hope to address them in any way possible.

Alongside this, we are funding cycling and walking networks across the country, building on the investment of more than €110 million to develop cycling and walking infrastructure in all cities during the next four years. In addition the Minister of State, Deputy Griffin, and I recently published a new greenway strategy, which sets out a framework by which we can develop more of these wonderful cycling and walking attractions in rural areas around the country. In the way there are links between the national planning framework and the national development plan, we will back up this policy framework for greenways with a committed funding programme. Some €53 million will be invested in greenway infrastructure between 2019 and 2021. Last week we opened up the application process and invited interested parties to make an application to access that funding programme. Together with improved bus and cycling infrastructure, the NDP will fund improvements in the national rail network too; improving connections across the country and between the North and the South. We are also examining the role that an extension to the western rail corridor can play in the Atlantic economic corridor.

In addition to these initiatives, we are also funding the construction of MetroLink. This will provide faster, reliable journey times to and from key destinations such as Swords, Dublin Airport, DCU, Ballymun and the Mater Hospital, while offering interchanges with other public transport services. We also will expand the DART network by providing additional carriages, improving signalling and extending electrification across the network to provide better services.

Those improvements have facilitated the introduction this month of the new ten-minute all-day service across the DART network. That level of service effectively means people can just walk up to their local station without the need to look at any timetable. The next step will be to provide fast, high-frequency electrified DART services to Drogheda, Celbridge-Hazelhatch and Maynooth. In addition, new DART stations will provide interchange with bus, Luas and metro networks. Building on the success of Luas and recent extensions, including Luas cross city, we have started a process of adding an additional 27% capacity to the Luas green line through lengthening existing trams and platforms. The route for the remaining element of the DART expansion programme - the DART underground tunnel - will, of course, be established and protected to allow for its future delivery.

We need to increase funding for the 100,000 km of roads around the country. The sheer scale of the road network is not well known but it is actually twice the European average per head of population. That is a lot of road. The road network is the workhorse of our economic and social infrastructure. Most of our freight is carried by road, all bus services rely on the road network and regional and local roads are essential in linking communities across the country. We need to restore funding to the levels required to appropriately maintain, renew and improve the road network as it is today. Most importantly, Project Ireland 2040 provides the framework for that funding.

In terms of new schemes, the NDP lists 23 national road schemes that already are at planning, design or construction stages. One of those is the long-awaited strategic road link between Cork and Limerick. Another 20 national road projects have been identified by Transport Infrastructure Ireland for pre-appraisal and early planning work with a view to developing a pipeline of projects suitable for future development. At a regional and local level, another 13 significant road improvement projects are currently being advanced under the NDP. All of these schemes will better link local communities, reduce congestion and contribute to the local economy in their areas.

It is not just about linking cities and regions. We also need to build better links with the wider world. That is why the investment planned by the State airports and ports is so important. We are providing additional capacity at Dublin Airport through the new north runway and work is already under way on it by the DAA. Complementing that investment, a new control tower, which will facilitate operations on the new runway is under construction by the Irish Aviation Authority.

Both Shannon and Cork airports are looking to sustainably grow their businesses into the future through targeted investment programmes and working with stakeholders to improve their offering. The role of the smaller regional airports is recognised in the national development plan and there will be continued Exchequer support for safety and security projects. All these projects will improve our links with the wider world and help to sustain and grow trade and tourism.

As an island, we need ports to plan for the future. In that regard I am happy to say there is a significant investment programme under way in all our tier 1 ports of national significance. Dublin, Cork and Shannon Foynes each has projects under construction that will help improve efficiency, connectivity and capacity. This is important because all ports of national significance, whether it is the three tier 1 ports or Rosslare and Waterford in their role as tier 2 ports of national significance, have a crucial role to play in maintaining our trade and tourism connections with Europe and beyond as the United Kingdom leaves the European Union. The State is supporting those investments through improved access to our international gateways.

I already have referred to MetroLink which will better connect Dublin Airport with the city centre, while the national development plan has details of a range of road projects to improve access to ports of national significance. These include the M11 to Rosslare, the N28 to Ringaskiddy in Cork and N69 to Foynes.

The national development plan is also about linking with one another and with visitors to our country, including through tourism, where we are looking to support and grow the industry across Ireland.

The tourism sector will benefit from the planned investment in both national and international transport links across the country, which I have outlined. The NDP commits almost €108 million to Fáilte Ireland between now and 2021 and states this level of investment will, at a minimum, be maintained out to 2027. Priority areas for this investment include the development and enhancement of tourist attractions and activity-based tourism to provide the type and quality of experience that visitors are seeking.

We will use the investment to support and grow tourism in rural communities, in line with the further development and promotion of the regional tourism brand experiences - the Wild Atlantic Way, Ireland's Ancient East and Ireland's Hidden Heartlands - which leverage the appeal of Ireland's natural, cultural and heritage offering. NDP investment in tourism throughout the country comes with the added benefit that the new or enhanced attractions and activities will increase the attractiveness of local areas not just as places to visit but also as places to live, work or invest in.

We are increasing investment at all levels of sport from the grassroots to the elite, with a view to increasing participation and improving facilities. The Minister of State, Deputy Griffin, and I published a new national sports policy in July. The policy sets out our vision for sport over the next ten years and provides the policy backdrop to the investments that are planned under the NDP. We have since announced a new round of the sports capital programme, which will make €40 million available to support the development of sports infrastructure in communities across the State. The NDP also commits to the establishment of a new large-scale sports infrastructure fund, which will be available to larger projects when the proposed Government contribution exceeds the amount available under the sports capital programme. At least €100 million will be provided under the new fund, which is designed to provide a more structured approach for this funding. The full terms and conditions of the new scheme are nearing finalisation. We will open the fund for applications in the coming months.

We are continuing our investment in the development of the Sport Ireland national sports campus. It was a wonderful summer of sporting achievement for Ireland, with highlights such as the silver medal for the women's hockey team and the hosting of the European para swimming championships at the National Aquatic Centre. I am pleased that many of our successful athletes are based at the national sports campus. The Government's continued investment will ensure our athletes have access to world-class training facilities in Ireland. The NDP commits €42 million to fund the completion of a national indoor arena and a national velodrome and badminton centre at the campus. The construction of the second phase of the national indoor arena is well under way and the arena is due for completion next year. This covered facility will ensure our elite athletes and teams can train in training facilities that are always open all year round. The national velodrome and badminton centre is expected to be completed by 2021. It will consist of a 250 m cycling track with badminton courts in the track infill area. The development of the campus will not stop there. Sport Ireland is reviewing the master plan for the campus in consultation with the sporting bodies. The review will guide the development of a ten-year strategic vision for the campus, which will be aligned with wider Government capital planning, as outlined in Project Ireland 2040.

I acknowledge that Project Ireland 2040 sets out a vision for the future that is ambitious in its scale. We need to be ambitious if we are going to build a better Ireland that addresses the demands of today, meets the challenges of tomorrow and is a place that we, our children and grandchildren are proud to call home. The investment committed by the Government under Project Ireland 2040 for the transport, tourism and sport sectors will help to ensure they play their part in realising that ambition and delivering for citizens. I look forward to hearing the views of Senators. I again thank the House for the invitation.

I welcome the Minister. I am glad to have an opportunity to discuss Project Ireland 2040. It is somewhat disconcerting to find myself discussing a project with a terminal date which is probably beyond my actuarial life expectancy. The Government is great at looking into the future. I am reminded of Joe Stalin in Russia. When things were not going too well in Russia, Joe would announce a five-year plan with all guns blazing and trumpets blaring. When things were going belly-up halfway through the plan, Joe would announce a new ten-year plan. He did it three times.

He put all the managers to death when he announced a new plan.

I am not too sure I would recommend it. The Government definitely takes the biscuit. Joe Stalin would be impressed by the methodology adopted here. We have a chance to discuss this plan. It seems that transport is one of the few areas in which we are unambitious as we seek to project into the future. If we are going to address the very serious problems in this country's transport infrastructure, we need better planning, better forecasting and more joined-up thinking. Transport infrastructure is haphazard, dysfunctional and anything but joined-up. This will not come as any surprise to the Minister. When I was perusing a number of his Sunday Independent columns, which were written when he was a Member of this House some years ago, I noted that he was scathing about aspects of public services, especially the public transport system. He wrote about the structure of that system and about the involvement of unions, for example. He seems to have become more sanguine since he became a member of the Cabinet.

I think the word the Senator is looking for is "captured".

I suppose that is part of politics. I regularly use all modes of public and private transport with the exception of the DART. It is fair enough to say none of them is up to scratch. None of them has the confidence of the paying public. None of them seems to be equipped to serve the needs of Ireland into the future. Fianna Fáil welcomes the much-needed investment in Ireland's transport infrastructure, which is creaking at the seams. A strong public transport system is the backbone of any strong economy, but Ireland is seriously flagging in that regard. The transport system is completely unfit for purpose and the road network is experiencing similar capacity issues.

The core question I must ask about Project Ireland 2040, which is an ambitious plan, relates to delivery. The Government and its predecessor have failed to deliver key infrastructural projects in a timely or efficient manner. We cannot allow another Luas cross-city debacle to grind our capital city to a halt. There is an ongoing underspend issue in the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. In 2016, there was a capital underspend of €6 million as a result of delays and the non-completion of scheduled projects. Chronic underinvestment is at the heart of the problem. Years of underinvestment by the Government and its predecessor have left us in big trouble. While budget 2018 resulted in a large increase in the capital budget for land transport, in the context of what is needed the increase is no more than a drop in the ocean, particularly as we are coming from a low base. In the past five years, Ireland has been one of the lowest net spenders on transport infrastructure in the EU. Capital investment in transport of €7 billion for the period from 2018 to 2021 is a huge 23% lower than our capital investment in transport between 2007 and 2010, when my party was last in government. The huge backlog of work that has built up throughout Ireland's capital infrastructure is now posing a considerable safety concern. The Minister cannot be happy about the crisis in the public service system. I refer, for example, to the measly 8% increase in expenditure on public service obligation services.

Fianna Fáil has proposed that a new national infrastructure commission be established and tasked with planning ahead, beyond the limited five-year cycle of current capital plans. This would be set up by reforming Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, and would draw from the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, the National Transport Authority, NTA, the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, and the local authorities. The new commission would be responsible for setting out a new framework for the development of transport in Ireland in the coming years. It would be tasked with overseeing long-term plans for the achievement of a series of targets: securing infrastructure investment of 4% of GDP, facilitating decarbonisation in Ireland, developing a strong transport network with balanced regional development, making Ireland an IT nation with telecommunications connectivity and providing for a balanced and secure energy mix. In our time in government, huge investment was made in capital infrastructure. I refer, for example, to the peak-level investment in infrastructure in 2008 under the most recent Fianna Fáil-led Government. Under this funding, we were able to deliver crucial projects, including the development of the Dublin Port tunnel, the creation of the Luas, the construction of hundreds of kilometres of top-notch motorways and the overhaul of the Irish Rail fleet.

While we talk about the future, I always say politics is now and politics is local. I am in my 12th year in this august House and when I started coming up by train from Charleville, there was not even a method whereby elderly people could traverse the platforms without climbing up rickety steel stairs with their suitcases. I raised it here innumerable times and the former Cathaoirleach, the late Rory Kiely, who I assume the Minister knew well, and I waged a campaign and I was delighted when I saw a proper lift system going in place about three years ago. That is the reality of how long it takes to get something done. I had to get off a train in Clonmel recently - a fairly sizable town, one of the biggest in Munster, to find that there was no public toilet in the railway station and that patrons had to go out across the street and ask for the key to avail of the facilities of a small supermarket. It is no harm to drop these real things into the debate and get our feet back on the ground. I urge the Minister to nail down investment in transport. I expect him to fight in Cabinet to secure the necessary funding to secure a modern, efficient system that is fit for purpose. In this he will have the support of the people and he will also have the support of Fianna Fáil.

I welcome the Minister. This is a timely debate. I congratulate the Minister also on his script because with the exception of the development at the National Sports Campus there is not a single time or date commitment mentioned anywhere. This worries me as a general proposition because it is easy to talk about things it is intended to do between now and 2040, but when will these things be done, how will they be done, what will they cost and will we get good value for money? These are the issues with which I am primarily concerned. I heard what Senator Ned O'Sullivan said about national rail and transport infrastructure and agree with it. I hope the Minister will forgive me if I look at the issues which arise for discussion today slightly from a Dublin perspective.

First, I note the Minister's speech mentions the MetroLink project. I was struck by former Senator Sean Barrett's speech to the Dublin Economics Workshop, in which he developed the proposition at length that there had been no cost-benefit analysis for the MetroLink project. The vaguest statements have been made about it but a cost-benefit analysis has not yet been published. It should be done but more fundamental than that is that the alternatives to it should have been considered in some form of public dialogue and that never happened. I note that the Minister, for instance in his contribution today, speaks about the Luas green line, which goes right past my garden; therefore, it is a thing which I have always supported and of which I am strongly in favour. The Minister has stated it is intended to increase the capacity on that line by 27% by lengthening platforms and lengthening tram sets. That is a good idea, which I favour, but if the platforms on the Luas green line are to be lengthened let us remember that the MetroLink project, as it was explained to representatives of the Oireachtas, including me, Senator Humphreys and other people, involves a different form of platform, a different metro system, perhaps driverless trains and entirely different stations. Consequently, are we spending money now on extending the capacity of the Luas green line at this stage in pursuit of one strategy, while at the same time preparing for a MetroLink which will go the whole way to Sandyford and which will involve the radical transformation of all of the stations on the intervening line? I refer to the raising of their height to accommodate the kind of trains it is envisaged will run on them and the destruction of all of the existing platforms, including the extended platforms to which the Minister refers. Which are we doing? What is our plan?

It is the case - I remember it from my time in government - that the Luas green line as it is now called, was planned with a view to its incorporation into a metro system at the time. That was a possibility but it was not done at the time and it was left aside. Bodies such as Iarnród Éireann came up with alternative schemes for different metro configurations in Dublin, including an east-west link between Heuston Station, Pearse Station, Connolly Station and the like. One thing that we should remember is that we committed €368 million to the construction of the cross city Luas and if the MetroLink project, as currently envisaged and as is currently out for consideration for public consultation is proceeded with, the Luas green line will effectively cease to exist. It will connect Charlemont station with Broombridge on one tram service and an entirely separate tram service from Sandyford to Bride's Glen on the other side. I want some answers to these questions. Why are we extending the platforms for trams when we know that we will be digging all of those platforms up and putting a high vehicle platform system in place if we are going to construct the MetroLink the whole way to Sandyford? I note the Minister's speech did not mention connecting the MetroLink the whole way to Sandyford. He talks about the city centre and Dublin Airport and I can see that there would have been a logic if a metro system was to be built from source to the city centre, to leave it at that and to have interconnectivity with the expanded green line Luas service, with longer trams, and to stop the idea of trying to break up the Luas green line service into three separate components, one of which is the Broombridge to Charlemont section, another of which is the portion of the metro which runs from Charlemont to Sandyford which would be a high-speed train operation which then reverts to a tram system between Sandyford and Brides Glen. This is not joined-up thinking and the cross city Luas would not have been built had it been intended to also serve places such as O'Connell Street with the MetroLink project. We will have two stations on St. Stephen's Green and two more on O'Connell Street. All of this money would not have been spent in that way if we had a clear view at that time when we authorised the construction of the cross city Luas, that MetroLink or something like it was in the pipeline.

I return to the fundamental point, namely, the absolute necessity for the publication of a clear, unequivocal and convincing cost-benefit analysis for such an investment. I ask again why it is the case, if the capacity of the green line will be expanded by lengthening platforms and tram sets, which I fully support, that we are also pursuing a different strategy, namely, to install a high vehicle train system on a portion of that line that will involve the destruction of all of the newly expanded platforms and the like and their replacement with a very different system which the engineers in the National Transport Authority have in mind? If possible, I ask that at some stage, before we go further with all of these projects, the Minister will publish the detailed cost-benefit analysis for the MetroLink project.

It is important that the public, and particularly the Dublin public, are given a fair and reasonable estimate of the duration for which the entire Luas green line will be out of commission if this goes ahead. It was suggested to me and Senator Humphreys that

everything would be done in six months, which is laughable. It was then admitted that however long it took to construct it, there would be a further three months for commissioning it. The truth is that between 12 and 24 months is a much more likely timeframe for the temporary abolition of the Luas green line service.

Today the The Times, Ireland edition features a plea from cyclists for the investment of significant sums to make a cycling-friendly city. It is an area on which the Minister's Department and Dublin City Council should now concentrate. Dublin is not a hilly area and it could benefit greatly from the use of bicycles but most parents and people of my age fear going out on bicycles in city centre traffic. There are not enough dedicated thoroughfares for the use of bicycles. There needs to be a significant rethink of the commitment of the city council, which is the most relevant local authority, and the Minister's Department to making a major contribution to building new cycleways and new bridges across the canal and opening up old laneways and dedicated ways of getting around Dublin by bike, which is unthreatened by heavy vehicles and traffic dangers. I welcome the Minister's paper. It is short on specifics and I would like a clear picture of the Luas green line cost-benefit analysis and the project, as he has not mentioned it in detail.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute briefly to this debate. I welcome Project Ireland 2040. I refer briefly to Senator Ned O'Sullivan who spoke of a plan, a further plan and Joseph Stalin. My view has always been that any plan is better than no plan, although I want it to be a good plan. The Senator spoke of the investment by the Fianna Fáil Government during the early noughties, which I acknowledge, but he also mentioned how planning went belly up in Joseph Stalin's era. The Senator's memory might be questionable in this regard. The Minister adverted to this himself in the sense that we are playing catch up because of under-investment as a result of the economic crash, which was challenging in itself. This plan gives us a pathway to provide a modern, efficient transport infrastructure throughout the country and an efficient system of connectivity within our congested cities. I defer to my Dublin colleagues on many of the issues raised, though I have a query which I will raise later regarding metro north, but I am more aware of what is happening in Galway. Prior to having any involvement in politics, I recall hearing about this ring road in Galway city in 2000 that was being held up by the bats in Moycullen. How near are we to having that bypass which is vital to opening up Connemara to tourism and so on?

There is an urgent need to open up the regions with modern infrastructure. I refer again to Senator O'Sullivan's contribution. Many projects were cancelled or stopped in 2007 or 2008 because of the crash. I welcome the recent completion of the Gort to Tuam motorway, the N17. This needs to be connected to Sligo and the north west and the N4 and N5. There has been great increase in air connectivity and in the numbers of passengers coming through the three State airports, particularly Dublin where a second runway is proposed. As a rural representative, I welcome the acknowledgment in this plan of the important part played by regional airports in the economic recovery and its sustenance. Reference is made to Kerry and Waterford airports and so on, but I highlight Ireland West Airport Knock. I was chair of a study group there that recommended investment of €36.5 million in projects, including the overlaying of the runway and the apron, as well as its designation as a strategic development zone. The airport is as crucial to the west and north west as Dublin airport is to the eastern region. I welcome the support that has been given on this and urge that it continue.

I welcome the Minister's acknowledgement of the importance of developing the regions. He noted he was examining the role that an extension to the western rail corridor could play in the Atlantic economic corridor, which is crucial. Will he elaborate on that matter?

Regarding metro north, I was a part of a transport committee delegation that visited Na Fianna GAA club and other areas on the proposed route prior to the summer recess. Consultation is ongoing on that but club representatives contacted the committee again recently. They say that, despite media reports of resolution, there has been no formal agreement with TII or any other body and the concerns about the impact and scope of the project in the community remain. Will the Minister update us on that matter?

The Minister mentioned the state-of-the-art sports campus. I congratulate everybody involved. As someone who has been passionately involved in sport over the years and understands the needs of elite athletes and the supports they require, the campus is an example of what can be done when there is co-operation between all the sports governing bodies, Sport Ireland and the Department. I very much welcome it. I have visited it on many occasions and used it for sports activities. It is a great advertisement for the country and demonstrates what can be done. The results in various sports recently have been brilliant and long may they continue.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on behalf of Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile.

In respect of transport, I refer first to the recent revelation published in The Irish Times that, in 2011, the then Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, blocked EU funding for infrastructural projects in the west and north west. The revelation proved the intention of this and previous Governments to concentrate economic growth and development in the eastern region. The upgrade of road and rail networks, which has long been recognised by community and business groups as vital for the sustainability of the regions, was removed from the plans with the blame directed towards the EU. Sinn Féin believes this is a scandalous revelation. All of the spin, even in overdrive, by the strategic communications unit could not hide the betrayal of rural regions by the Taoiseach.

The programme for Government contained a commitment to seek a review of the Irish trans-European transport network or TEN-T projects by the European Union within the first three months of government. I understand this review has not been carried out. The TEN-T funding for major transport projects that have a positive carbon reduction impact can be in excess of 50% and up to 75%, yet the Government refused to use the opportunity to invest in rural regions. Some weeks ago Sinn Féin asked the Taoiseach why the western rail project was not included in the much published 2040 plan. We were told that the project did not meet the criteria contained in a cost-to-benefit survey. Again, I suggest his reply is merely further spin. A freight and passenger western rail project would open up the parts of the country that have the most potential for development. It would transport goods to ports in the south of the country that export directly to European markets. Obviously exporting directly to mainland Europe is becoming more part of the conversation. This is the time for a real change in direction in terms of investment in ports, airports, roads, modern rail and broadband services along the west, in the midlands and across the Border. This episode shows the finances can be found and all professional analysis shows that the return to the economy would be enormous, thus leading to sustainable social balance.

I ask the Minister to urgently prioritise a plan to engage with the city councils of both Dublin and Belfast on the memorandum of understanding that includes the development of an hourly high-speed rail link between both cities. The former Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade stated the project would be a priority for Government. Any plan to link Ireland, its people and places must span all of Ireland and defy the illogical, incoherent and self-defeating harm of operating on a partitionist basis only. Ireland works best when we work together.

On sport and cycling, I have resumed cycling to Leinster House with the resumption of the sittings and I find the commute frustrating. I used to experience road rage when I drove my car in this city but now I experience road rage when I cycle to work on my bike. My rage is not directed at anyone else on the road but stems from the poor network of cycle lanes. I cycle from the Luas red line stop at Blackhorse to the Suir Road, navigate a pedestrian crossing and some vacant land and then I encounter the Luas line at Rialto Park. Thankfully, I can then quietly cycle around the Guinness brewery and on into Pimlico and Meath Street. There is a good cycle route from Blackhorse to the Suir Road and along the canal. Unfortunately, it seems that the plan for the Luas lines did not take cyclists into consideration and provide two cycle lanes along the track. If some areas can be patched up, then two cycles lanes could be provided but sadly, such ambition does not appear to be present. When one reaches Meath Street one must go left and swing back up on to St. James's Street. The one-way routes around the city are completely designed for car use, which frustrates cyclists. I break the rules and cycle towards-----

Sinn Féin has never been good with rules.

I have been trained well. My Dad taught me to cycle. I cycle towards St. Patrick's Cathedral. There does not seem to be too much urgency to link the canals and Luas lines with cycle links. I ask the Minister to demonstrate more urgency on that front.

I welcome the Minister to the Seanad. It is always nice to have the senior Minister in a Department here to discuss something, particularly something as far ranging as this development plan, Project Ireland 2040. In common with other speakers, particularly Senator O'Mahony, I believe it is important to plan. For too long we have done things in a hip-hop way. Long-term planning is very important. I agree with Senator McDowell that plans need a timeframe. It is okay to write a plan on paper but it is vitally important to set targets for what we want to achieve.

When the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Bruton, was the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, he produced the Action Plan for Jobs that stipulated targets for every year. He was accountable and people were accountable if targets were not reached. It is important to outline targets because otherwise things lapse. The key point is to have finance in place on a long-term basis and, therefore, to succeed we need a stable economy. I always cite Germany as a model because it does not have boom and bust cycles. As a result the German Government can make long-term plans for infrastructural projects because it knows the money will come in on a regular basis. Unfortunately, Ireland has experienced boom and bust cycles on a regular basis and, therefore, cannot plan for the long term. Ireland, from an economic perspective, is at the wrong end of a cycle. During the bust part, we should invest in infrastructure and during the boom part we should save for the next bust. As usual, we make a mess of things here but that is not the fault of Fine Gael. The fault usually lies with Fianna Fáil but Fine Gael has been left to clean up the mess.

Let me refer to planning. In 1983, my mother opened the first motorway in Ireland, the M7, which is also known as the Naas bypass, along with Dick Spring. The great thing is that the original plan ensured there was enough capacity for three lanes of traffic. The motorway is being widened at the moment and, therefore, none of the bridges must be changes or moved as a result of such forward planning. Almost 40 years later, the original infrastructure can be utilised to create a third lane. That is an example of good planning. I urge the Minister to ensure when a Luas line or new road network is being designed that it is future proofed in order that the infrastructure can be utilised in 40, 50 or 60 years' time, thus ensuring that we do not have to build something new.

I am sure the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport is well aware that the M7 and Sallins bypass are being upgraded. When towns and major hubs are being developed, people should support whatever is needed to provide the infrastructure for ring roads to be built around towns. We must allow planners to design towns in order that they have the correct infrastructure to facilitate the population of towns in 20 and 30 years' time, rather than the current five-year plans. I am pushing hard for Naas to get an exterior ring road, for example. At least there is a line on the map now. A feasibility study must be conducted to ensure that in 20 years' time, there is a potential to build the road. I urge everyone to plan for the long term. I seek an assurance from the Minister that he and his Department will encourage long-term development.

Someone built a tunnel under the Phoenix Park that was left idle for almost 100 years. In fairness to the Minister's predecessor, the tunnel has been opened up and now links most of Kildare to the heart of Dublin. Someone built the tunnel in the 1870s and we are benefitting from it now. That just shows that a good plan pays dividends way into the future.

When the idea was mooted to have three lanes on the M7 motorway I proposed that the Luas line should run down the middle of the motorway all of the way down to Naas and build a large park and ride facility and provide additional transport links. No one at the time gave me a logical reason for not doing so. Again, I sought to future proof the project in order that it could be utilised in ten, 15 or 20 years' time. Unfortunately, many planners work on a five-year cycle or, worse still, a Government cycle. We should break such practices and I am glad to say the Project Ireland 2040 does so.

We need four lanes of railway track to go to Kildare to service the commuter belt. That must be a priority. If we want to take people off the road network, the easiest way to commute from the greater Dublin area to the heart of Dublin is on the railway. It makes sense and it should be a priority.

The National Transport Authority, NTA, and Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, have land holdings at the junctions of roundabouts. This land should be used to provide park and ride facilities. The buses would be able to pull in and take on passengers to bring them into the centre of Dublin. Even in my village of Johnstown, the TII owns a two-acre patch that the buses pass on their route. This could be levelled off and a park and ride facility could be made available. Land in the vicinity of junctions should be considered for that purpose.

Tourism falls within the Minister's brief. We need to work on creating a greenway along the canals. The greenways that have been opened up, in particular in the west and Waterford, are fantastic tourist facilities. I have always viewed the greenway as a major tourist boost for this country. People who visit Ireland do not come for the weather but for other things, and those other things link into the greenways. I put out the idea that Irish Water has a natural right of way from the Shannon to Dublin via the canals, which could be used for the transport of water straight from the Shannon into Dublin, with some storage place along the way. While it would be doing that, it could present the canals as greenways as well.

The sports organisations would like to know whether it is proposed to continue the sports capital funding scheme in the long term. Clubs are no longer the beneficiary of large-scale grants that were distributed during the McCreevy years. I know that my club in Kill got a grant of €750,000 on the condition that it would raise 30% of that sum, which caused it serious problems for a period of time. Now that clubs are getting lower sums of money, their plans are broken down into many steps. The clubs would like to know that the capital funding scheme will be available regularly so that they can apply for funding of €50,000 or €100,000 each year.

Now, I will become very parochial. Kildare County Council spent €500,000 on transport infrastructure during the snow last winter. The county council would like to get that money back to use it for the repair and maintenance of rural roads. There are many rural roads that need to be repaired to make them passable. People in rural areas pay their property tax, support rural industries and must be able to use their local roads.

The local authorities must be able to plan. The county council plans from year to year, depending on the allocation from the Department. A multi-annual budget would allow the local authority to plan projects for a five-year period and it would allow a councillor to tell people when their road would be done because the money would be there to do the work.

I thank the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, for coming into this Chamber. As I said, it is great to have the Minister here to listen to our issues. I hope some of the ideas I have suggested may be taken on board.

I welcome the Minister. He did not mention pedestrians. Footpaths in cities and towns are in a horrendous state and a serious trip hazard, not just for older people. We need to put that right. I know the quick glib answer is that footpaths are the responsibility of the local authorities and they need to invest in the maintenance of footpaths. The local authorities have not had the money in the past decade. We need a serious level of investment to ensure footpaths, junctions and pedestrian lights are up to a quality and standard that encourages citizens to walk more rather than use the car.

I, too, support the investment of 10% of the Department's annual budget in cycling infrastructure across all cities and towns. The Minister mentioned the cost-benefit analysis. The return per euro on investment in cycling far exceeds anything put into roads or transport. Again I make the argument for increased funding purely on a cost-benefit analysis. It should be in and around 10% of the Department's budget and I ask the Minister to consider that seriously.

The Minister said he would deal with BusConnects during his closing remarks. I wish to make a general comment because I do not think the Minister will be able to deal with the number of specific queries that everyone has. People who telephoned me from the Lower Kimmage Road were crying on the phone because of the information they were given. Whether the information is incorrect or misrepresented, it does not matter. The consultation process has not worked as correctly as it should, and this has created anxiety and fear among the public. We have to examine it to see what has been done to create this anxiety. When I spoke to a representative from the National Transportation Authority this morning, I was told that it was a consultation document. I accept that, but since it has created the spread of fear and anxiety among the public in the capital city, it has been done wrong. We must learn from that mistake because we will have a bus corridor consultation process in November. We need a clear analysis to ensure we put out the information clearly in order that it can be understood. What has become clear from the BusConnects consultation process is that there was no origin and destination survey done in respect of the design of the routes. That is showing up very clearly through the consultation process. People want to go to different places and not where the routes are designed for. We need to learn lessons from the BusConnects consultation process and make sure that we do not repeat those mistakes. I will deal with the National Transportation Authority on specific questions.

Senator McDowell covered MetroLink exceptionally well. Again, the papers and studies that came into the public domain show there was no origin and destination survey on the south side of the people travelling on the Luas green line. I travelled on the green line and conducted a minor origin and destination survey in Dundrum. I found that people were travelling great distances to use the green line to travel into town. We need to collect data on who is using the green line if we are going to spend vast amounts of money to make it a metro line. We do not know where the people are coming from or the distance of the radius from which they originate to travel on the green line, which causes capacity problems. I am a big believer that there should be a metro system on the south side. The location should be evidence based. Having been in government through the recession, what was said over and over again was that future decisions would be evidence based. There is very little evidence in respect of MetroLink on the south side.

I would like to see an evidence-based decision-making process on MetroLink on the south side of Dublin. If the evidence is there to support it, I will hold my hands up and admit that I got it wrong. What I see, however, is a waste of money in terms of the investment currently going into the green line which will be compounded by investment in a metro link. We do not have sufficient information to make an evidence-based decision and I ask the Minister to review the matter.

The Minister made brief reference to Dublin Airport which has a number of transport links. One must look at the passenger numbers going through and in that context, I think we are missing a trick. We are developing Dublin Airport as a hub but is the airport authority looking at connectivity for Irish people rather than just focusing on onward travel for passengers from America who are flying on to other capital cities? I have received many complaints from passengers going through Dublin Airport who have told me that services are diminished and that much of the connectivity to other European cities has been lost. The airport seems to be more focused on serving as a transatlantic hub rather than focusing on where people want to travel to and do business. Again, I have no hard evidence but it has been said to me enough times for it to merit examination. We must determine if that is a genuine complaint and if we are missing a trick in that regard.

The main port facilities in Dublin and Cork face many challenges in the context of Brexit. We must make sure that the infrastructure is in place so that whatever form Brexit takes, whether it be soft or hard, does not have a major detrimental impact on how ports operate. We need to be ready and to plan for the worst case scenario. In that context, I must give credit to the CEO of Dublin Port, Mr. Eamonn O'Reilly, who is trying to do just that.

It is very important that we invest in our top sportspeople. While I welcome such investment, I would also like to see a focus on sport for life, that is, investment in what are often minority sports that people can play well into their latter years. Such sports keep people active and healthy but many are not getting the funding that they need. The Minister must prioritise spending, which I accept. I will discuss the sports to which I am referring with the Minister at a later date.

On train infrastructure and commuting, Councillor Mark Wall has been running a campaign relating to the train fare from Newbridge to Dublin. If we want to get people out of their cars, we must recognise that places like Newbridge are now commuter towns. It must be economically viable for people to commute from Newbridge and other parts of Kildare into Dublin city. I ask the Minister to examine the fare structure for commuter towns like Newbridge. I recognise that I am dropping this on the Minister's lap without prior consultation and would be happy for him to come back to me on it at a later stage. I do not really expect an answer on it now. I will not be comparing the Minister to Joseph Stalin, as others did. I do not think Deputy Ross looks anything like him. I much prefer Lord Churchtown. I will leave it at that and thank the Minister for coming into the House.

I welcome the Minister. I took great interest in Project Ireland 2040 - Linking People and Places when it was launched in June. There are many elements of the plan which are both necessary and welcome. It is particularly welcome that the plan refers to an investment of €53 million in greenway infrastructure between 2019 and 2021. However, I have a difficulty. Perhaps the problem lies not with the Department but with the local authority. On four occasions funding was announced for a so-called greenway between Boyle in County Roscommon and Lough Key Forest Park. What did the local authority do with that funding? It built footpaths in an area with the first round of funding. When it got a second round of funding it built more footpaths and it did up some of the roads with the third tranche.

Many local authorities did not really enter into the spirit of what constitutes a greenway. When one goes to Germany, Amsterdam and other parts of Holland, one sees that little villages and towns are linked by walking paths and cycle paths. We have applied again for funding for a greenway between Lough Key Forest Park and my town of Boyle. This is necessary infrastructure because the park is a major tourist attraction. The town of Boyle needs this investment and the greenway must be fast tracked. Roscommon County Council has not entered into the spirit of greenways. It has used greenway funding to repair roads instead of using road funds for such work.

I have pointed out to members of my party who are in government that there are approximately ten towns in the country that are lacking the most basic infrastructure, namely, a hotel. Boyle, for example, had two hotels 20 years ago but now has none. Lough Key Forest Park is nearby and I urge the Minister to visit what is a huge success story. In the early 2000s, Coillte owned Lough Key Forest Park, which is the jewel in the crown of parks in the country. Coillte could not draw down funding from the European Regional Development Fund because it was a semi-State company. I came up with the idea that Roscommon County Council could get on board with Coillte in order to be able to draw down funding. All the council had to do was come up with €2 million, which it did and now the people of Roscommon and Ireland have a stake, with the semi-State organisation, in Lough Key Forest Park. We have drawn down nearly €20 million in funding and it is a huge success. There are approximately 80 people employed in the park and the company is making around €20,000 per year but Boyle does not have a hotel.

An Bord Pleanála has refused planning permission for five hotels in the past ten to 15 years. Lough Key Forest Park, a major tourist attraction drawing hundreds of thousands of paying visitors every year, is two miles from Boyle but there is no hotel infrastructure in the town. The downturn following the boom has meant that nobody will build a hotel because one can buy one from NAMA for a fraction of the price. I am trying to get the local authority involved. I understand funding cannot be given to a private developer but there must be some way for the local authority to build a hotel and then lease it out. Boyle is dying because it does not have that necessary piece of tourism and social infrastructure.

Who objected to the hotel?

I know who objected to the hotel and the objection was due to the lesser horseshoe bat. Droppings were found under the tower where the hotel was to be located. The lesser horseshoe bat had never been seen north of Athlone but it stopped a development worth €100 million. Had it gone ahead, Boyle would now be a major tourist attraction. It is frustrating and annoying.

I ask the Minister and his departmental officials to consider whether something can be done for the towns to which I am referring, namely, those without hotels. Senator McDowell understands Boyle needs a hotel but we cannot get a developer to build one. If we build one, we will then have five. I invite the Minister to come to Lough Key Forest Park to see what is an absolutely wonderful development. I also invite him to my town of Boyle to see for himself the need for Government involvement.

I congratulate the Minister on his plan and thank him for all of his work.

I indulged the Senator somewhat because this debate is supposed to be on transport, not tourism. I am sure the Minister would be delighted to come back to the House to discuss tourism, sport and various other aspects of his brief but today we are discussing transport. I remind Members that we are discussing Project Ireland 2040 - Linking People and Places and transport matters.

I welcome the Minister and the debate.

In terms of Project Ireland 2040 and linking people and transport, Limerick and the mid-west have been far ahead in our plans in this respect. The local authorities in Limerick and Clare are working with Shannon Airport and the Foynes Port Authority. Connectivity is important in the region. We are seeking a bypass of Adare, as the Minister is well aware, and the M20 project, which is at an advanced stage. However, we have a good deal of local transport infrastructure in place. The Coonagh to Knockalisheen bypass road will link Coonagh to Lisnagry on the way to Killaloe in County Clare. That is important for the development of the region because transport connectivity is vital in the development of businesses. As a result of Brexit, a number of companies are looking to locate in Ireland. Dublin is growing at a particularly fast rate. New roads infrastructure along the Atlantic corridor from Galway to Cork via Limerick will be highly beneficial in attracting companies considering locating in the region, which will create jobs. It is important to place an emphasis on that.

Senator Humphreys referred to some of the problems with Dublin Airport. We have fine airports in Shannon and Cork and if infrastructure was put in place quickly to improve connectivity, the region would be a great counterbalance to the eastern region.

We also have a major plan for the development of Foynes Port. While we have a port in Limerick city, there is also a deep sea port in Foynes. The N69 upgrade and the bypass of Adare are very important projects for the development of Foynes, the second deepest port outside Dublin. This project is vital for the development of the region and it must proceed as soon as possible. Many businesses operate through the port. Transporting goods from Foynes to other parts of the country is hindered by gridlock and a lack of transport infrastructure. Adare is constantly gridlocked, with people spending up to an hour driving through the village, which is not satisfactory.

The mid-west region is working proactively to put fine projects together. The educational institutes have had a major input in that regard and their work together as a unit has been very important for Limerick and the region. Limerick city is the driver of the region. Limerick City and County Council has reached out to Clare and Tipperary local authorities and the local authorities are working together to drive development in the region.

I ask the Minister to consider prioritising some of the projects to which I have referred. Regarding the Coonagh to Knockalisheen Road, I compliment Limerick City and County Council and Clare County Council, the lead authorities for the project. It is vital that this bypass is completed. It is estimated to be completed by 2021 but if it could be completed sooner, it would help the region a great deal in terms of development.

I welcome the Minister. The issue of transport is a very important as the population grows and the economy expands. I welcome the Minister's comments on the metro and the electrification of the DART service to Drogheda. However, in the interim, we could invest in hybrid trains that would deliver increased frequency before the line is fully electrified. That would be very welcome.

I do not need to remind the House that Fingal has the youngest population in the country, if not in Europe. It also has a good deal of land rezoned for housing. In the midst of a housing crisis, it is an obvious place to meet housing need quickly. However, we need infrastructure such as schools and amenities - sports amenities fall within the Minister's remit - as well as road and transport infrastructure.

I welcome the second runway and tower at Dublin Airport. I mention metro again because 30 million people will pass through Dublin Airport this year. Under a plan being considered, that figure would reach 50 million. This new connectivity with the city is crucial for the development of Dublin Airport and the country.

I welcome very much the Minister's comments on greenways. I have been a long exponent of the coastal greenway extending through Fingal from Sutton and Howth all the way to Balbriggan. This presents a tremendous opportunity for tourism, family activities and safe exercise.

That brings me to the issue of cycle lanes. Currently, one takes one's life in one's hands when cycling. Many people would cycle from Lusk into Swords but there is not one cycle lane that is safe. We need cycle lanes from Swords, Malahide and Portmarnock into the city centre. Many people would use them and, as others have pointed out, they would be environmentally friendly but also very good from a health point of view.

I raised the issue of BusConnects on the Order of Business this morning, as did the Acting Chairman. There is much that is good in this plan. There is no doubt that we need to plan ahead and develop a system that is more efficient than the current one. The consultation process is extremely important and we need to up the game in the communication of this issue. I met people in the Alex Hotel who pointed out that there are good aspects to the plan which will result in major improvements. Swords will have an improved bus service, which is good, and Dublin Airport will also have a better bus service and greater connectivity with the city. Against that, there is no proper coherent transport approach between Irish Rail and the bus service in Fingal. People in north County Dublin now have to take two buses to travel to Beaumont Hospital. They will have to take three buses to make that journey if BusConnects proceeds without further proper consultation.

Under the plan, there is to be increased frequency in the DART service from Malahide, with a train to run every ten minutes. However, the schedule shows that on weekdays a DART train will run at 9.30 a.m. and the next train will not run until 10.10 a.m. There is a need for connectivity between buses and trains because I am sorry to say the experience has been that the buses and trains are not co-ordinated properly. Sometimes buses leave stops early and sometimes trains are late and people miss their connection. A good deal of work needs to be done around that, and I mention only some of the points.

Another major issue is the loss of the 33x bus service. While I am aware that this proposal is being reconsidered, this plan will fail miserably if the 33x, which provides an excellent service into the city, is not maintained.

Before I return to BusConnects, I will mention Donabate and land zoned in Fingal. There are plans to build 1,200 houses in Donabate and a new road has been developed. However, we still have a traffic jam on the M1. What is badly needed is a slipway onto the M1 directly from the road that exits the peninsula on which Donabate and Portrane are located. We need to keep the cost of transport at its current level. When the cost of transport goes up, the cost of everything goes up, especially for hauliers who are competing against their European Union colleagues. Any move to equalise the price of diesel and petrol would be a catastrophe for hauliers and put them out of business.

I refer to the proposed gas station at Dublin Port. People who bought and invested in gas lorries, with the encouragement of Government, cannot get the gas to run them in any meaningful sense.

The Minister must ensure current services are maintained until the new services are up and running.

That is particularly important when it comes to the new rail services on which we will be waiting. There should be more buses, especially for rural link services. As north county Dublin expands, villages such as Naul, Ballyboughal, Oldtown and others need connectivity with the likes of Balbriggan and Swords in order that people can get onto the main transport routes. I look forward to the Minister's answer. I will have to watch it on screen because I have another meeting to attend. I thank the Minister for coming to the House.

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Ross, and his officials. The Minister spoke about linking people and places. It is not just desirable, it is essential. That is why the overarching philosophy of the Minister to link people and places is one we must continue to develop. Project Ireland 2040 is the platform that will not only allow the Government, at both national and local level, to manage and plan but to develop a new Ireland, as the Minister said, not just for today but also for tomorrow. Connecting people with place will be the Minister's legacy as Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport.

Transport is the one thing we all desire and seek. It includes public transport, in terms of the efficiency of bus and rail services and airports and also concerns motorists who commute from work to home. I have in my mind the image of people travelling in Cork city from the Kinsale Road to the tunnel and the gridlock that has happened as a result of a growing economy and people going back to work. It also means we must plan.

In the debate the Minister has listened to many Senators. One thing he should take notice of from the Order of Business today is that the BusConnects consultation in Dublin is causing difficulty for both Members of the Oireachtas and citizens of the capital city. Members who come in here are giving views that have been expressed to them at public meetings. The Minister was correct when he said a greener and expanded public transport network will add greatly to the choice and experience of us all and will help improve our quality of life. Congestion is now the cause of much stress and it causes huge annoyance for people.

Project Ireland 2040 provides the opportunity to develop the region in which I live in Cork for its people. We will not go through the list of announcements. It is critical for the connectivity of roads, rail and sea and air transport. It is an opportunity for Cork, as the second city, to be the gateway to the south and a hub. It will allow for the strengthening of the connectivity both between Cork and Limerick and between Cork and the east and Cork and Dublin. The regeneration of Cork city is one I believe will happen in tandem with Project Ireland 2040. That is why it is very important that Project Ireland 2040 has staging points in order that we can see the tangible delivery of projects whether for the M20 or the BusConnects project for which €200 million has been announced. In the Minister's discussion with the various authorities under his remit, will he discuss whether we will see, during the Minister's tenure as Minister, an enhanced public bike scheme for Cork city? We have a university, an IT and a hospital all on the same side of the city. It makes absolute sense to see an expansion of the public bike scheme. Equally, when we speak about our cities it is also important - in the context of Cork, which I am speaking about - to allow for the expansion of bus routes.

It is important that there be a discussion with the NTA on a Ballygarvan to Cork bus route and a direct link with Ballygarvan from Cork city. It is an area with a growing population. If we recognise that cities cannot be the only place in which to live it makes absolute sense that in the case of Ballygarvan there would be a direct link with Cork city. Under Project Ireland 2040, Cork city has the capacity to grow. The new local government arrangements for Cork city will allow that to happen.

I will conclude with one sentence. I congratulate Cork Airport on its growth of almost 4% this year and its magnificent global marketing award achieved this week. The Minister has been very supportive, on which I commend him, but it makes absolute sense for Norwegian Air to have a 12-month, 52-week service in and out of Providence. I have used it myself on a number of occasions. It is an excellent service. It makes no sense to have the route cancelled for a couple of months when the route is open in Shannon Airport and Dublin Airport. Why can we not have a service from Cork, the capital of the south, to Providence even if it is only one or two days a week?

I welcome the Minister to the House, with which he is very familiar, having spent a long time in the Seanad before he was elected to the Dáil. I welcome him back.

I will make a number of points particularly on the transport matter. I came here this morning by bicycle. I was very glad I was cycling because there was a tailback through the heart of the Minister's constituency where I live, from Goatstown pretty much the whole way to Leinster House. I appreciate that the Luas was not operating but it shows how popular the Luas is and how dependent many people are on it. It was not raining at the time but the impending bad weather probably had more people in their cars. We need to look at it seriously. I know the Minister is looking at it through BusConnects and so on. I thank the Minister for the mention I got in the Lower House yesterday. I do not think I have been mentioned before in the Lower House. I thank the Minister for mentioning it.

BusConnects has much merit. There are very many good things in it such as the connectivity, the 90-minute journey fares and interconnectivity between Luas, DART and bus services. There is much good in it. There are services that seem to be very popular and altered in a certain way. I completely accept it is a draft proposal but I hope Mr. Walker and his team will look at all of the consultation - I understand there will be a lot of consultation done and observations put in - and will try to keep the best of what is there while adding to it. The concept of the spines is very good for those people lucky enough to live on spines. The 46A is a very popular route in my former council area in Stillorgan. There is much merit in BusConnects but I think the process and the people involved in it need to take on board people's concerns.

I cycled here this morning. It was fast and took only 19 minutes but there were cars the entire way in. That is not acceptable. We need to be looking at the number of park and ride facilities for people who are travelling long distances who do not have great public transport. Many people come up from Wicklow, perhaps not too far from the Minister. They come in on the M50 down through Goatstown and Clonskeagh and into Ranelagh. If they had a better option and there were park and ride facilities further out, I do not doubt they would use them. We need to consider those people and give them options and alternatives to avoid them having to bring their cars close to the city centre.

I apologise I was not here for the Minister's speech - I had another commitment elsewhere - but I have read it. I do not know what other speakers mentioned. Senator McDowell may have mentioned the metro and the concerns about it. The metro is going as far as Sandyford at the very same time that we are building a brand new town in Cherrywood. I think it is proposed there will be about 12,500 housing units for almost 30,000 people yet we are going to have the old service being provided from Brides Glen inward as far as Sandyford, which will then become a metro, which will then become either a Luas or an underground metro somewhere in the area where Senator McDowell lives. We need to future-proof whatever is going on in Cherrywood because it is a very significant residential development on almost 400 acres of land. It is probably the last developable bit of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown left of such size.

If we are to do work on the line, we need to do it there where there are relatively very few people. The work could probably be done there far more quickly and easily than in a city centre location.

On Brexit, Dublin Port is certainly making provision. As Senator Buttimer said and as I have said, there is nothing good about Brexit. It will be difficult but we need to future-proof ports in that regard. We need to examine road safety. I did not hear the figures yesterday but I hope European Day Without A Road Death was a success in Ireland, despite the weather. I encourage the Minister to consider road safety and speeding although it is technically not his brief. When I drive at the speed limit on the M50, motorists fly past. The level of enforcement on some of our major roads is not what it could be.

With regard to airports, I must state, to be fair to Senator Byrne, that I would prefer if there were more people flying out of Shannon. Equally, there should be more travelling from Cork. For all the abuse the former Minister, Noel Dempsey, got ten or 11 years ago over white elephants, terminal 2 in Dublin Airport is now so full that Aer Lingus aeroplanes are going back to using terminal 1. It has been a phenomenal success. I congratulate Aer Lingus and the Dublin Airport Authority, DAA, on what they are doing but we need to keep an eye on future-proofing all our investments.

It is not all negative. I am not trying to be negative. I commend the work being done. It is very positive. I refer to initiatives such as the Leap card. It is amazing how fantastic the Luas was when it was opened by Séamus Brennan only 14 years ago at the Sandyford depot, near where I live. Much positive work is being done but we need to future-proof for the increase in population. As much as we can, we need to get people out of their cars, not for the sake of it but because they will have faster journey times and better experiences. There is nothing worse than sitting in a car and not moving at all for a time. I thank the Cathaoirleach and the Minister.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for giving me the opportunity to respond to what has been a very useful and constructive debate. I thank the Senators for the mature, sensible and constructive way in which they addressed this issue. Everyone knows there are serious difficulties in the public transport sector. Traffic congestion is a major problem that has to be addressed. In some ways, it is worse than we would expect. Certainly in Dublin, it is chronic. This debate has been marked exclusively by pleas by Senators on behalf of people in their own areas, particularly Dublin.

I will address the BusConnects issue first because it has been a common theme, certainly among those from Dublin. I understand the difficulties that people from all constituencies and areas of Dublin are encountering with this project. Radical change of this sort cannot be introduced without some very understandable, constructive, sensible and, in some cases, absolutely correct opposition. One cannot do anything as radical as drawing on a clean sheet of paper a map of bus routes in Dublin to reduce journey times dramatically and relieve the traffic problem without upsetting certain people in certain areas. There is no intention of doing so. The intention of BusConnects is to relieve the traffic congestion. The projections being made are quite dramatic in that regard.

As everyone knows, the plans as produced will increase the frequency of buses, increase capacity and introduce new, very exciting and much-needed routes. That must be applauded. I will not go into the detail but there will be new routes introduced that have been necessary for a very long time and that will satisfy many of the demands many have made about UCD, St Vincent's University Hospital and such places. Quite understandably, those projects and initiatives tend to be banked by those who get them while all the more vocal responses are from those who are inconvenienced by some of the projects suggested. Like all the Members who mentioned this, I am especially sympathetic towards those who could not reach hospitals, universities and schools before now. Some of them see the project has not introduced a way for them to do so.

It is important to state the criticism is not so much of the project ibut of the communication of it. There were circumstances in the past in which I would not have said this - Senator Ned O'Sullivan rightly referred to this - but the ambitions of the NTA and its constructive attitude towards this very difficult project have been commendable. In many cases, it has gone the extra mile to involve the public regarding this initiative. That is because the NTA, all politicians and I realise the heartbeat of the people of Dublin is contained in the trains and buses, which carry them almost every single day of the year. It is the commuters who count and who must be accommodated.

Buses, including those of Dublin Bus, are not run exclusively, and not even primarily, for profit. They are run for those who are unable to travel by other means, sometimes for economic reasons. We want to move as many people as possible into those buses. The NTA realises this and the very important social role buses play. That was a surprise to me. Nevertheless, the criticisms of the consultations have been coming in faster than expected. I suspect that is because there is a misunderstanding over what is going on.

The NTA has held numerous public consultations across the city of Dublin in recent weeks and staff from Dublin Bus were present. They have been well advertised. People have been invited at various fora and through various media to go to them. Many have turned up and many have been reassured by what they have heard. These consultations have not taken the shape of public meetings with people rabble-rousing or anything like it. There are not politicians stirring people up at these meetings. There are serious people going along with serious problems and explaining them to people from the NTA and getting an answer on how they may get from point A to point B most easily and quickly, or on why they cannot. Many people have come away happy from those consultations, reassured after having been fed a lot of misinformation.

Some people have come away from the consultations still worried about the links. I refer, in particular, to old people and the disabled. They are worried about links and having to change where they did not have to change before. That is understandable. Those views are serious and must be taken into account. If communities are cut off, of course, they must be looked after. If groups of people who were habitually used to getting from point A to point B, including the elderly, now find they cannot do so for various reasons, their cases must be considered with great sympathy and there must be a practical response. My sense of what is happening is that the consultation which will end on 30 September will prompt a constructive response from the NTA.

This is not window dressing or cosmetic. This is for real. The public has responded to the invitation from the NTA to communicate. It is not the only way the public can respond.

There are other actions the public is invited to take on the BusConnects website. A telephone line is available where the public is invited to ring in and ask the questions it wants answers to and see if that is satisfactory. Is it working? I rang it myself. I did not say who I was. I just gave my Christian name. I asked quite a complicated question and they came back to me with a full answer. I rang again and asked another question and they came back to me. I will not say whether the answer was satisfactory but the answer was full information about how to get from point A to point B. That is a very good service because if someone gets that particular response, he or she can decide whether the new system suits him or her. People are misunderstanding the maps, which are very complicated and very difficult to understand, and are unable to make decisions about whether this benefits them, but once they get a reply from this service, and they will get a reply, they are able to decide.

The next step they can take is to make a submission. The NTA is taking submissions by email and letter and will consider them very seriously. My sense is that the options are open and public representatives behaving responsibly will tell those who come to them with legitimate worries about what is going to happen that they can at least rectify the fact that they are not fully informed by ringing up, finding out the information, making a submission and seeing the result. As submissions close on 30 September, there are another ten days or so. There is plenty of time to do it.

After the submissions are made - it is fair to give the NTA time to consider them - it is likely that a new version of that plan will emerge. I am not making any promises but I appeal to the NTA to put the new version out for consultation again when it appears because this is a serious matter and entire communities are affected by it. We realise that and we want to see a serious and proper toing and froing. We know these measures will not come into force until 2020. One or two might come into force very late in 2019 but, in effect, it is a 2020 project; therefore, there will be time to consider sympathetically the difficulties people encounter and sort them out. I appeal to everybody to indulge and involve themselves in this process because that is the best way of getting a result. They have a willing listener at the other end of this process who wants to see a new programme of buses that works where all the benefits of the new radials and orbitals will be seen and felt by the majority of people and where those who are or have been unable to find out or who are puzzled and worried about this can be reassured in the months to come.

I will answer some of the questions asked by some Senators because it is appropriate for me to do so. Senator Ned O'Sullivan spoke about underinvestment in transport. He is right. I will not indulge in political blame for all of this because it is unhelpful, but there has been and there still is a problem with underinvestment. This is why we need a plan. If we could produce all the capital today, we would do all those things the Senator would like and do them faster. There has been underinvestment because of the usual reason, namely, a shortage of money. The reason there is a shortage of money is something we could probably debate for a very long time. From what the Senator said, the projects of which he approves are projects of which we also approve. We are not really on different sides. We might be on different sides when it comes to the speed of it and the source of the capital that will come forward.

The Senator also referred to the Luas cross city debacle. Everyone knows there were problems to start off with but it is working pretty well now. One of the great merits of a good transport company is being flexible. There were serious mistakes and difficulties in the beginning such as overcrowding but they were responded to fairly swiftly by the company behind Luas and the green and red lines of Luas are now working very effectively apart from the damage caused by the storm last night for which we cannot blame the company or the Government. It is now working flexibly and is showing a willingness and an ability to adapt pretty quickly to changing conditions.

Senator McDowell said no cost-benefit analysis was made.

I should have said no proper cost-benefit analysis had been made.

A cost-benefit analysis was made.

It has been criticised by everyone.

I do not want to engage with the Senator about what was proper and what was not proper but a cost-benefit analysis was made. If the Senator goes to the MetroLink website, he will find a cost-benefit analysis. A preliminary business case analysis will be made shortly, which will be published on www.metrolink.ie. A final business case will be presented for Government approval before construction starts in 2021. Will all the platforms be dug up? I keep being asked detailed questions about matters that are not matters for me, but the answer to that question is that platforms will not be completely dug up. They will be changed and enhanced in ways that are necessary, but the idea that there will suddenly be a complete and utter change is not true. They will be adjusted accordingly.

Regarding the question about a cycle-friendly city, I probably ought to say a little about cycling. I have said quite often - maybe not in this House but certainly in the other House - that we have been behind the curve in terms of cycling, not just in Dublin but throughout the country. We have spent a lot of money on greenways. A total of €53 million will be spent on them in the next four years. This is a way of promoting cycling. Greenways are used by a great number of cyclists. I regret the fact that at certain times there has been a fall in our expenditure on cycling, whatever the economic condition of the country was. However, we have committed fully in the national development plan to what is a big step change in cycling.

The national development plan commits a €110 million spend on cycling, a trebling of capital spending over the next three to four years. That is an enormous commitment by the Government. It is an admission that we fell behind on this before. I believe that was the case with all Governments. However, we have now decided that cycling is absolutely necessary, not just to get the people from point A to point B, like Senator Horkan this morning, but for the health of the nation, as well as part of the drive to reduce carbon emissions. That decision has been taken and will be followed through. Senator McDowell is correct that in times past, including when he was in government, cycling was not promoted as much as it should have been or could have been. We have now decided it is necessary for the sake of congestion and health.

If I am asked for concrete evidence of this, I revert to BusConnects and the radial routes. The proposal also has a commitment to provide 200 km of segregated cycling ways which will ensure whole new avenues open to cyclists, which will contribute to having more cyclists. These will be adjacent to all bus corridors. They will improve safety, health and the numbers of cyclists on the road. That commitment should be not taken lightly. It will cost money but will greatly benefit the cycling community and contribute to cycling safety.

Senator O'Mahony asked about the ring road around Galway. Within two or three weeks, I will be seeking the Government's approval for the Galway ring road project in order that the county council can go ahead to seek planning consent from An Bord Pleanála.

The Government is absolutely committed to Knock airport. We realise its importance regionally, that it is vital for tourism and that it is the gateway to the west from overseas. The Senator need not have any worries on that score. The departure of the previous Taoiseach, although he was a great supporter of the airport, will not make any difference to the Government's solid commitment to the airport.

The western rail corridor is subject to review going ahead. Iarnród Éireann is doing a review which will then be examined by the Government.

Senator Warfield spoke about a blockage by the Taoiseach, when he was Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, of developments in the west. If there were blockages by the Taoiseach, they were done for economic reasons. I do not believe there was ever a bar put on any project by the Taoiseach because he is open to these projects. A stop or a delay may have been put on certain projects in the hope that when the economic crisis was over they would be restored. Some of them have been revived as a result.

The Senator also talked about the need for cycling. I have dealt with that issue.

Senator Lawlor referred to the need for a timeframe. It may not have been mentioned in my speech but there is a timeframe in the NDP. I cannot promise the Senator anything about the railway line to Kildare because it is a matter for the National Transport Authority, NTA, CIÉ and Iarnród Éireann. He referred to the greenways, which are an exciting project. Up to €53 million will be provided for them. The application for the greenways is already out. We opened it up last week and invited interested parties to make an application to be funded. We are expecting massive competition in that regard.

The Senator also asked if the sports capital programme would continue every year. That is our ambition. We would like to see it happen every year. It is a phenomenal programme which fulfils one of the key pillars of our sports policy, namely, that there should be participation. We have had phenomenal success recently with sporting achievements which has to be acknowledged day after day. It is great for national morale and we are all immensely proud of it. We must not forget the fact that 95% of those people who indulge in sport will not reach that extraordinary pinnacle which we have seen from Irish sport in recent weeks. However, they are equally important, if not more so. The great virtue of the sports capital programme on a whole is it filters everywhere. It filters to people who are not athletic stars but will benefit enormously from it. It is a community grant which is beneficial to both small and large communities. It makes a significant contribution to social and health well-being but its primary purpose is not to contribute to winning gold medals at the Olympic Games. That is another day's work.

Senator Humphreys devoted much time to cycling. He looked for a commitment to a 10% investment in it. I will not give such a commitment but €110 million is trebling the investment we had before. That is an enormous commitment which we will keep. It is a massive step change and an acknowledgement that those who have been advocating for cycling for so long were ahead of the curve. We are doing something that others were not prepared to champion for various reasons. We are committed and we have taken on board the real benefits as advocated by the cycling lobby. We will continue to do so.

I take the Senator's point about consultation on BusConnects. I do not accept it. It has made an extraordinary effort to reach out to all those with difficulties with it. I will be urging them to continue that consultation on a serious level to ensure communities in the Senator's area have every opportunity, even after the next version of the plan, to come back on it.

This dialogue must end in a consensus, in agreement and in the vast majority of people being happy with the number of routes open to them and the access they have to the places which are important to them.

Senator Humphreys talked about MetroLink and an evidence-based decision. I do not anticipate any decision made on MetroLink not being evidence-based. My understanding is that the real reason for the provision of the metro is that the whole of Dublin will need greater capacity in its means of transport and in transporting people in and out of the city. This means being speedier, being larger and being able to provide a service which the Luas cannot provide in terms of speed and numbers. This is the whole purpose of MetroLink, with routes with which the Senator will be fully familiar. I do not think this will be done without evidence-based decisions, but one need only see the extraordinary rise in population in the Senator's area, in my area and further afield to know that the demands on transport will continue for decades to come. We will look for increased capacity on an ongoing basis.

I will pass on what Senator Humphreys said about Dublin Airport to the DAA. I think what he says is anecdotal, but there are real capacity issues at Dublin Airport constantly. He says it is perhaps looking at being the wrong kind of airport, that it is looking at connectivity rather than where people are going in and out, etc. I think the main problem with Dublin Airport is that it is so successful and, as Senator Byrne said, I think, or certainly implied, so big in comparison with Shannon and Cork that it makes the traffic very lopsided in terms of people going in and out of the country. This is a problem for Dublin Airport and for Shannon and Cork. It is a problem for Shannon and Cork because they do not have enough customers and it is a problem for Dublin Airport because it has too many. The Senator has put his finger on it. That is very difficult.

The Senator said Dublin Airport looked on itself as a hub. It is an interesting debate. I am not sure what the answer is, but sure, perhaps passengers are suffering because the airport sees itself as just transporting people across the Atlantic. It may have to consider that matter. There are various ways out of the capacity problems at Dublin Airport. We have just got a capacity review, which is just being finalised and which will make some serious suggestions. It will comment on the benefits or otherwise of a third terminal, which could help the capacity problems, and will also probably make suggestions as to whether that should be an independent third terminal. The review will certainly outline the benefits and downsides of that and we will have to make a decision on it shortly.

The ports are absolutely vital in the context of Brexit and the main emphasis in that regard is on Dublin and Rosslare. Preparations are being made - I must be careful - for all scenarios involving the ports, for no deal and for a central case. I have seen some of the preparations and I am very impressed with what is in line, but we should not underestimate the scale of what might happen in Dublin Port or Rosslare. Large amounts of space would have to be made available in various situations, which would mean that both Dublin Port and Rosslare would have to find space. I am absolutely confident, however, that Ireland is pretty well in a leadership position in preparing for Brexit in terms of the ports. We are doing virtually everything that is necessary, particularly in respect of the two principal ports.

I do not want to interrupt the Minister, but he has responded to almost six Senators. As there are another five left to respond to and we have only five minutes left, I am-----

Are there five more? I am very sorry. I will try to get through them. That is fair enough.

I should declare that as I was the last speaker, I would not mind a response before someone else says it. As we have spent half an hour on the first six, I ask that we deal with the other five in five minutes.

I am very sorry.

I thank the Minister.

Of course.

We must finish at 3 p.m.

I did not realise I was running out of time.

Senator Feighan acknowledged the €53 million for greenways. I cannot comment on the case he made for the greenway he proposes but he has made a very fine case and no doubt those who are adjudicating on the matter will take it into account. He talked about Roscommon and its difficulties. Ireland's Hidden Heartlands will promote areas such as Roscommon, target investment into tourist facilities in the area and provide an opportunity to highlight the scope for a hotel investment outside the more fashionable areas. Perhaps the Senator would consider zoning a hotel site in the development plan. That might help.

I think I have addressed Senator Byrne's plea about Shannon and Cork airports and the fact that Dublin Airport has too much business. She addressed the N21 and N69 Foynes to Limerick road. Its estimated cost to the Exchequer is, I think, €462 million, which is fairly substantial. My understanding is that Limerick County Council is now preparing statutory documentation for submission to An Bord Pleanála. An environmental impact assessment report and statutory process will also be prepared. There is an estimated completion date of 2026. What she is saying is "Please hurry up". I will bear that in mind. I thank her for raising the matter.

Senator Reilly addressed the issue of cycle lanes being unsafe. I think I have responded to that issue elsewhere. I think we will be taking further initiatives to protect cyclists very shortly. It will not be very long in coming. The Senator also addressed the issue of communication in respect of BusConnects. I have dealt with that issue.

To respond to Senator Buttimer, I will do anything I can to support Norwegian Air. It is in the interests of the nation, the consumer and the customer that it be encouraged. Sometimes we do not have enough competition coming in and out of Ireland. Ryanair has done an absolutely wonderful job on providing that, but the more we have, the better for the customer. I would like to see Norwegian Air operating on a 365 days a year basis. We encouraged it to come in and we will continue to encourage it to operate fully here.

To respond to Senator Horkan, I thank him for what he said about BusConnects. There is an obligation on all of us, and I am not saying in any way that he is not doing this, to look at this very objectively and assist people - Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, everyone - to get over the difficulties they are encountering. I am sure, because Senator Horkan and I are both in the same constituency, that he is finding that one of the problems is that people do not understand, when they have been taking a bus for 45, 50 or 60 years, that it is now called the 44 bus, for example, which runs through our constituency, and will suddenly be called the A-something else. That is the first mental block they must overcome and it is a very difficult one.

They also have to deal with it taking a different route, which they automatically assume will be worse for them, although that may not necessarily be the case. It would be helpful if when they understand that the route they are used to travelling to get from point A to point B will not be the same, they are told there are lots of other places they will be able to go. This is happening throughout Dublin but people are not being told this. As I said, they are backing the good bits, which is that there are lots more routes open to them, and, at the same time, complaining about how they are going to get from point A to point B when there is a simple solution.

Information will lessen the puzzlement and the resistance, if there is any. I appeal to everybody to co-operate with those who are promoting this project. It is a good scheme. I will urge the NTA to continue to engage with people to iron out the flaws, including in regard to the next stage, in order that the public, if they are not happy, can discuss how the problems can be resolved to enable BusConnects to be a successful project which, when completed, will be in the best interests of everybody in Dublin.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive responses to the issues raised. I have no doubt that he will be in the House again soon to deal with other transport, tourism and sport related issues.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Stanton. No. 3, motion re statement for the information of voters on the Thirty-seventh amendment of the Constitution (Repeal of offence of publication or utterance of blasphemous matter) Bill 2018 will be debated in conjunction with Second Stage of the Bill but will not be moved until Fifth Stage has concluded.

On behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, I thank Senators for agreeing to deal with this Bill today. The House will be aware that under the Referendum Act 2001, polling must be not earlier than 30 days and not later than 90 days after the date of the polling day order which can be made only by the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government when the necessary referendum Bill has been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. It is intended that the referendum on blasphemy will take place on the same day as the presidential election, which is scheduled for 26 October. In these circumstances, there are inevitable time pressures and constraints when it comes to progressing the Bill.

The Bill's Title aptly describes the purpose and intent of what is a short, two-section Bill. The purpose and intent is to remove the reference to "blasphemous" from Article 40.6.1°.i of the Constitution.

Section 1 provides for the amendment of Article 40.6.1°.i by providing that "seditious" shall be substituted for "Blasphemous, seditious" in the English text. If this amendment is approved by the people in the forthcoming referendum, the relevant part of Article 40.6.1°.i of the Constitution will read as follows: "The publication or utterance of seditious or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law".

Section 2 is a standard provision and specifies the name of the constitutional amendment and of the Bill. The publication of the Bill fulfils one of the commitments in A Programme for a Partnership Government. It accords with the recommendations included in a series of reports which touched on the constitutional provision on blasphemy and which, without exception, favoured the deletion of that provision. Those reports include the Law Reform Commission, LRC, report on the crime of libel in 1991. The 1996 report of the Constitution review group came to the conclusion that the retention of the current constitutional offence of blasphemy was not appropriate. In 2008, the Joint Committee on the Constitution also considered this matter and concluded that the specific reference to blasphemy should be deleted from the Constitution. Most recently, we had the valuable work of the Convention on the Constitution in 2014. Following the trend of previous reports, the convention in its sixth report favoured, by a clear majority, the removal of the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution.

It is somewhat difficult to come to a common understanding on the nature of blasphemy within the framework of a modem society. We can take it that in simple terms "blasphemy" means to vilify or show contempt for God or to abuse or treat with contempt or disdain that which is sacred. However, there is a complex political and religious background to the development of this concept in this jurisdiction, which makes the simple definition less than helpful when it comes to considering the constitutional provision. It seems to be generally accepted that our legal understanding of the term "blasphemy" has grown out of the understanding at common law as it prevailed in England and Wales over the centuries. Once the Anglican Church of Ireland became the established church in the late 17th century, the rationale for maintaining blasphemy laws was inextricably linked with the need to protect that religion and, by extension, the State. Thus, as will be apparent to Senators, there was a clear and fundamental link between protecting the State on the one hand and, on the other, safeguarding the religious system of belief with which that State was identified. However, the intellectual and philosophical movements in the 18th century, which is now referred to as the age of enlightenment or the age of reason, brought about a change in that approach.

Over time, individual rights came to the forefront of social thinking. In the blasphemy context, the rationale for defending and securing the established belief system was overtaken by an emphasis on the need to protect the religious sensitivities of believers. By the time the Constitution was adopted, therefore, it would seem that the focus of blasphemy, as it was understood at the time, was very much directed towards speech likely to cause gross outrage to such sensitivities. Furthermore, it would seem to be the case that, arising out of the various equality provisions in the Constitution, the "protection" offered by the blasphemy provision, if it can be called such, was not confined to any one church or belief system.

The proposal in the Bill should not be viewed as an attack on belief, nor is it intended to privilege one set of values over another. It is simply an acknowledgement that a concept, the meaning of which is unclear and which is rooted in a past where loyalty to a state and loyalty to a particular religion were virtually synonymous, has no place in the Constitution. At the core of the proposal to remove the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution is the view that criminal sanctions are not appropriate in this context. In a modern and democratic society, we should not accept or condone the criminalisation of expression. That said, it is a different matter if that expression is geared towards inciting hatred or violence. Where such is the intention, the criminal law must come into play. In a society such as ours, whose members hold a wide array of beliefs, the State cannot guarantee that, on occasion, individuals will not be hurt and outraged because something which they might regard as deeply offensive is considered by others to be no more than humorous or satirical comment. Additionally, it is not in keeping with best international practice that there should be a possibility, however remote, that a criminal prosecution of blasphemy would be taken in such circumstances.

In our current society, maintaining the criminal offence of blasphemy in the Constitution and, as a consequence, on the Statute Book has more to do with an unnecessary and anachronistic check on freedom of expression than with the protection of religious values. Removal of the blasphemy clause from the Constitution would be a public affirmation of our belief in an inclusive society. It would underscore that communication between those with different belief and value systems should take place on the basis of mutual tolerance and respect. It would remove the inhibiting check on freedom of expression which a blasphemy law inevitably represents. The law on blasphemy has not been invoked with any frequency and it would seem that for more than a century and a half, there has been little interest in entertaining blasphemy prosecutions. The most recent prosecution for blasphemy in Ireland seems to have taken place in 1855 and that prosecution resulted in the acquittal of the person involved who was alleged to have burned a bible in the context of a general burning of "evil literature".

In more recent times, the position and particulars of the offence of blasphemy in Irish law were considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Corway and Independent Newspapers. During the course of the judgment the constitutional framework, which guarantees freedom of conscience, the free profession and practice of religion and equality before the law to all citizens, was discussed. It was noted that it was difficult to see how the common law crime of blasphemy, related as it was to an established church and an established religion, could survive in such a framework.

It should be borne in mind that the judgment gave particular emphasis to the fact that existing legislation had not adapted the common law crime of blasphemy to the circumstances of a modern state. The court concluded, therefore, that given the current state of the law and the absence of any legislative definition of the constitutional offence of blasphemy, it was impossible to determine the nature of that offence. This analysis, and the implied criticism of the Legislature it contained, brings us to the much-maligned provisions which are set out in sections 36 and 37 of the Defamation Act 2009. It would be fair to say that there is a high threshold to be met if the offence created under the Act is to be successfully prosecuted and the Department of Justice and Equality is not aware of any prosecutions having taken place under it.

If the constitutional amendment is agreed to by the people, it is the intention of the Government that sections 36 and 37 of the 2009 Act would be repealed. Provision for such repeal is contained in the general scheme of a Bill which has been published on the Department’s website, and which sets out the measures which would be drafted as a formal Bill in the event of the Thirty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution being approved.

I am not going to deny that the proposal before the House is a modest one. There are those who say it is without point or purpose, especially having regard to the Corway judgment and to the general lack of prosecutions in this area. However, there are good, sound justifications for removing the reference to blasphemous matter from the Constitution and I will enumerate these reasons.

It is an undeniable fact that for as long as it remains in the Constitution, we have in being a constitutional offence of publishing or uttering blasphemous matter. We cannot wilfully ignore this constitutional provision. There is also our international reputation to consider. In 2013 the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom identified 71 countries where blasphemy was punished. The ranking of our provisions as being at the upper end of mild does not gainsay the fact that we are in a minority of EU countries which featured on that list. Since the data for that report were collated, both Malta, in 2016, and Denmark, in 2017, have moved to abolish their blasphemy laws. Notwithstanding our relative ranking on the list, there is a fundamental problem with the fact that we feature on such a list at all.

I have referred to the difficulties in reaching a common understanding in this society as to the practical workings of a blasphemy offence. Imagine, therefore, the widely varying understandings of the concept of blasphemy which may exist in other countries which do not necessarily share our liberal values. In some countries blasphemy laws are applied in a discriminatory manner in order to protect a particular religion. In effect, the laws are used to justify the persecution of religious minorities, as well as the persecution of those who have a value system which is not based upon religious belief.

In addition, there is a wide divergence in the sanctions which may apply when blasphemy laws are breached. Such sanctions range from fines, terms of imprisonment of varying lengths, physical punishment, hard labour and even death. While we in Ireland may have our own particular views on our blasphemy provisions, when we think about them at all, an outsider looking in sees that Ireland is a country with a blasphemy law in its Constitution and at the heart of its legal system. In tandem with possible false impressions as to the nature of our blasphemy law, its very existence in this jurisdiction offers apparent comfort to those in other jurisdictions who can point to it in order to justify the more extreme regimes which they apply and this is something about which we should all be disturbed.

I acknowledge that the removal of the offence of blasphemy from teh Constitution is, on the face of it, a relatively small step. Nevertheless, taking this step would represent a deeply symbolic and tangible affirmation of our status as a modern and democratic society, where free speech is valued and where multiculturalism is embraced. I commend the Bill to the House.

I thank the Minister of State, not just for his very comprehensive outline of what is being proposed but for the brevity with which he delivered it. Fianna Fáil believes the current provisions on blasphemy in the Constitution are outdated and should be removed. Ireland is one of only seven countries in Europe where blasphemy is still an offence. The Bill proposes the removal of the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution by way of referendum. Article 40.6.1°.i provides that the offence of blasphemy is punishable according to law, and the Defamation Act 2009 defines that offence, and provides that a person shall be liable upon conviction or indictment for a maximum fine of €25,000. The Minister of State outlined many reasons that we should remove blasphemy.

Freedom of expression is very important. It is the cornerstone of a democratic society and any constraint on it must be clear and limited and this is not the case with blasphemy in Article 40.6.1°.i It tends to protect believers over non-believers in its current form. Ireland has changed very significantly in recent times. The Minister of State made the point that Islamic and other states are using Ireland's law as a defence of their blasphemy laws.

Hate crime legislation will protect deeply-held beliefs more effectively than the blasphemy laws by ensuring all religious groups are protected from incitement without unduly constraining freedom. My party, Fianna Fáil, introduced the Criminal Justice (Aggravation by Prejudice) Bill 2016 in July of that year and despite having undergone pre-legislative scrutiny in May 2017, the Government has not issued a message pursuant to Article 17.2 of the Constitution in order that a money message provision be issued in relation to the Bill; therefore, it has been prevented from proceeding. The Government sought and was granted an exemption from pre-legislative scrutiny for this Bill by the Dáil Business Committee, but it is noteworthy that Bills introduced by other parties, in particular, the Social Democrats' 2017 Bill on this issue, have not been allowed to pass beyond Second Stage.

I am certainly not going to delay this legislation. We all understand the need for it and the speed with which it needs to go through both Houses because of the presidential election and having the referendum on the same day. I do not doubt but that Senators Conway and Ó Donnghaile will try to be as brief as I have been. I thank the Minister of State. We will try to proceed with as much speed as we can for the rest of the afternoon.

I intend to be more brief than my colleague and agree with everything he said. I want to commend the Minister of State for a very comprehensive speech which outlined exactly where we are. It troubles me that some of these Islamic countries are using our constitutional provision to defend their position. I saw a programme on BBC two years ago which convinced me that we needed to do something about this provision in the Constitution because Ireland was referenced on numerous occasions as part of a very disturbing report.

This should have happened a long time ago. It is outdated, not required and not reflective of us. Many elements of the Constitution could be changed. The woman's place in the home is one on which I sincerely hope we have a referendum in 2019. I was not convinced that pre-legislative scrutiny was required for it, but the National Women's Council of Ireland seemed to think differently. It took place at the justice committee yesterday and that is democracy. Let us hope something positive comes out of the pre-legislative scrutiny because it certainly has delayed that referendum now until at least next May. That referendum should have happened alongside the blasphemy referendum in order to help to bring the Constitution into line with society as it is today.

The referendum will take place. I commend our colleagues across the House for their co-operation in putting this through as quickly as possible. That is reflective of what happens in this Chamber most of the time. There is collaboration and co-operation for the good of society and that is why we are here. Obviously, the presidential election is going to dominate proceedings in the run-up to 26 October but I encourage the people to give deep consideration to this issue because it is very important that this proposal receives major endorsement to remove this from the Constitution.

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh, agus a Aire féin, as a bheith linn don díospóireacht seo inniu. I apologise to the Minister of State for arriving late and missing his contribution but I was at a meeting elsewhere. I wanted an opportunity to speak on this proposed amendment of the Constitution. The blasphemy clause in the Constitution was the product of another time. We need a Bunreacht for today's society. It is important the Constitution reflects today's values, and central to those values is freedom of expression and freedom of speech. I am confident, as has been said by colleagues, that the people will vote to delete it from the Constitution, as they have voted for on marriage equality and abortion reform in recent times. These are expressions for the modern era in which we now live.

On our island, partition created two conservative states. The conservatism was reflected in the political culture and the religious ethos of both those states. In the North the culture and ethos were used to create a one-party unionist religiously Protestant state which discriminated against an entire community on the grounds of political, cultural and religious identity.

This was also reflected in the social morals of that state. In the South the State used its power differently but, nonetheless, the consequences were similar with power and privilege being in the hands of a political and Catholic religious elite. Out of that, a society was created where the Catholic Church and its attitude to public and private morality held sway. It suited the political interests of those in Government to cultivate a special relationship and special status for the Catholic Church. The place of the church in the 1937 Constitution institutionally enshrined the power of the Catholic Church. It was a different Ireland where the State and the Catholic Church moved hand in hand. This hand in glove relationship prevented public accountability of both State and church and this unaccountability space was filled with scandals such as child abuse and its cover up, mother and baby homes, Magdalen laundries, industrial schools and the list could go on.

This amendment, like the marriage equality and abortion reform amendments, is a step towards a new Ireland, a diverse Ireland culturally and spiritually powered by people of all faiths and none. Today, there is much more open criticism of the State and the church and that is good. It is the core tenet of any republic. No institution or body should be immune from challenge and criticism but it would be unacceptable if this were to extend to religious intolerance or prejudice against any particular faith or creed. An inclusive Ireland must recognise and accept all religious faiths and none. Religion plays a huge part in people's lives and is a source of great strength and solace. Society is in a state of flux. Each generation brings its own attributes with it and we have arrived at a point where an informed and an informative debate needs to take place in areas to do with health and education and the place of the Catholic Church therein.

There can be no special place for any one religion now or in a future independent Ireland. I stand for the republic of Wolfe Tone of Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter. The upcoming referendum could be about embracing an ever changing Ireland and I hope it is successful and that we continue to move towards a society that respects people of all religions and none.

I will oppose this legislation and the referendum on three grounds. It is entirely unnecessary and ignores the legal historical context of this constitutional provision. It does nothing to protect or promote free speech, which is the stated the aim of the proposal, and the cost of this referendum is an unnecessary and scandalous waste of taxpayers' money because it will cost at least €3 million. Unfortunately, this proposal is typical of the Government and the political classes and underscores the hypocrisy and tokenism that pervades so much of the Government and political agendas. We have just come through a summer where controversies have raged in respect of health, post office closures and the disgraceful treatment of women at the hands of the CervicalCheck programme. What does it say about the Government that the first Bill to be put before the Dáil this term is not related to these issues but to remove the constitutional offence of blasphemy? It is almost hard to believe but taxpayers have forked out more than €150 million on holding referenda since the year 2000, with each trip to the polls costing between €15 million and €20 million.

It is democracy.

Since Fine Gael entered government in 2011, we have had nine referenda. While it is proposed to hold this referendum on the same day as the presidential election, holding this poll is not without costs all the same. Each additional referendum held on the same day will add approximately €4 million to the overall cost due to additional ballot papers, counting staff and so on. It was the former Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ronan Keane, not the Archbishop of Armagh or Dublin or any other religious leader that one might care to mention, writing in the LRC report on this topic in 1991, who said a referendum devoted to removing blasphemy "would rightly be seen as a time wasting and expensive exercise". How right he was and how true that still is. Why are we here ramming this through the Seanad in just one day? Is it the case, as on many issues, that the Government believes this issue is uncontroversial because Opposition and other non-Governmental parties are supine when it comes to any of these big philosophical discussions? Why does the Government believe it is so uncontroversial or with little or no opposition to it? Does the Government, therefore, think debate on it is unnecessary?

In introducing the legislation the Minister of State referred to Ireland's reputation being somehow impugned by the blasphemy provision. He made a spurious comparison between Ireland and those countries, chiefly in the Islamic world, that have the death penalty for uttering blasphemy against Islam. This demonstrates the crass level of analysis which is being brought to this discussion. A report just last year by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom found that the current laws on blasphemy in Ireland are among the least restrictive in the developed world. So much for the notion that Ireland is some kind of international pariah. What is really going on here is another expensive photo opportunity for the Government to talk about how progressive it is by proposing yet another amendment to the Constitution. The fact that it has moved against the purely symbolic reference to blasphemy, in addition to proposing a similar deletion of the purely symbolic reference to women in the home, gives us a clue to the real intention here - more politically correct red meat to the liberal gallery of media supporters that fawn uncritically over the Government. I refer, in particular, to the people who cannot help scratching the itch that is the God question.

At least the Minister conceded in the Dáil that there had been no prosecutions for blasphemy in this country. The most recent one occurred in 1855 when we were still in the grip of the neighbouring jurisdiction. The reference to blasphemy has effectively been rendered a dead letter by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in Corway v. Independent Newspapers in 1999 when a private prosecution against newspapers for blasphemy was thrown out. The Defamation Act 2009 - I participated in the debate in this House - introduced hurdles which effectively ensure no prosecution could ever be brought and the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, openly admitted that this was the aim of that legislation. As the 2009 Act was going through the House, many Senators, including Senator Bacik and her Labour Party colleagues, made outlandish claims that the 2009 Act would open the door to future prosecutions for blasphemy. That scaremongering has been shown to be entirely and predictably wrong.

In view of all of this, why not simply introduce a Bill to amend the 2009 Act and remove the offence from our law altogether? That could be done in short order and at almost no expense. It would also leave the purely symbolic words in the Constitution where they pose no threat to pluralism and free speech, but of course that would not allow any virtue signalling. That is the problem and that is why we have to have a costly referendum. It will not happen because there is a vocal minority of commentators and politicians, mainly on the political left, who are deeply offended by the reference to blasphemy and any reference to religion in the Constitution. As I said, the God question is the itch they cannot help scratching. Let us remember that we have no problem with legislation that protects certain classes of people from statements made by others through, for example, the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989. Through those laws, we acknowledge that speech is not unlimited, yet there are no proposals to repeal these laws in the name of free speech.

In 2013, the Convention on the Constitution suggested the proscription of blasphemy should be replaced with a new general provision to include incitement to religious hatred. All religious denominations should be given equal protection. Unsurprisingly, the Government ignored that suggestion. Religious freedom is a fundamental right protected in international human rights law, yet we seem to be happy to erode it progressively in Ireland. If we were going to spend millions of euro of taxpayer's money on a referendum, would it not be a more appropriate gesture to insert clear protections for believers, non-believers and others in the Constitution instead of just deleting words? It seems that the aim is to ensure speaking out against certain belief structures will be unlimited. That is a good whereas the profession or support for those same beliefs is to be limited and proscribed because they are bad. That is the new definition of tolerance that is regnant in this country. To be more specific, an American author wrote some years ago that anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice. This is the bizarre form of free speech that many seem to have in mind.

Just listening to the previous speaker, to link the wrongs of our past on the side of the Church and the State and to see it as somehow relevant to this debate on a rather meaningless and toothless provision on blasphemy in the Constitution shows the superficial level of the debate that has been ongoing in this country. I have been clear and consistent in my view that a blasphemy provision should not be in place to protect one religion or to protect God from offence. God is not quaking in his boots at the thought of the Minster abolishing the constitutional provision on blasphemy. However, the hard-pressed taxpayer should be livid at this latest raid on the public purse by our political rulers to pander to their liberal base, their cheerleaders in the media and the usual human rights quangos. As I said in 2009, I find persuasive comments made in the past on the difficulty of determining what is offensive to God.

One person’s meat is another person's poison and I suspect the same may be true for deities. Clearly, if blasphemy were to be understood as giving offence to God, it would be completely unworkable in modern legislation, but that is not how it has been understood.

There is a distinction between seeking to protect God from offence and seeking to protect the reasonable and lawful practice of religion and religious expression. A significant number of people in this country from all denominations and faiths have a profound religious belief which anchors the manner in which they view the world, interact with their fellows and seek the welfare of their families and their community. We had an opportunity to amend the Constitution, if we were going to spend public money, to recognise the harmful effect of gross offence aimed at these people, but the Government has not taken that route. Why?

The Government enjoys using the word "progress" in relation to its proposals to amend the Constitution, but it is a very strange concept of progress and one that is riven with hypocrisy. We have heard much talk about championing rights, but there is no consideration of the rights of increasingly marginalised groups such as people with religious beliefs. In addition to the reasons mentioned regarding costs and so on, I will oppose this proposal because it is a missed opportunity to achieve generous and appropriate protection for the rights of people of all faiths and none and because it is a scandalously self-indulgent raid on the public purse on behalf of an elite group of people in our society who are radically out of touch with the problems that beset most ordinary people.

I welcome the Minister of State and I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. On behalf of the Labour Party group in the Seanad, I speak in support of the Bill. I am delighted that we will finally have the opportunity to vote on the removal of the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution. The continued presence of this offence in the Constitution is not tenable in a modern, democratic state. It is not tenable in the context of our international obligations and does not serve any purpose other than to send out an unfortunate and outdated signal.

I have listened with disbelief to the somewhat populist and strange position taken by my colleague, Senator Mullen. If I recall correctly, when we were debating the blasphemy offence in the Defamation Act in 2009, Senator Mullen was against the creation of that statutory offence, as I was. I think-----

I think I sought to amend it.

I will check but certainly we were assured by the then Minister with responsibility for justice, former Deputy Dermot Ahern, that he was obliged to introduce a statutory offence of blasphemy because of the constitutional position. As far as I can see, this is a tidying-up exercise to ensure the Constitution is modernised and brought into line with contemporary thought. As a criminal lawyer, I do not think it is appropriate that we would have criminal offences in the Constitution. In that context, I am critical of the fact that we are leaving any offence within the Constitution. I would like to see "publication or utterance of seditious or indecent matter" removed too. I think the Government's proposal is simply to remove "blasphemous", but it is a missed opportunity not to take the offence out in its entirety. I do not think the Constitution is an appropriate place for us to define criminal offences. It is not our criminal code nor should it be. It is a broad statement of aspirations and of governance of the State. That is my only quibble.

The Minister of State has set out very clearly that this is not some sort of whimsical, sudden move by the Government. This is something that has been recommended for a long time. As far back as 1991, the Law Reform Commission recommended that the constitutional prohibition on blasphemy be removed. The expert Constitution Review Group made the same recommendation in 1996. In 2013, I was proud to be a member of the Constitutional Convention which considered in great detail, with expert opinion and advice, the question of the removal of the offence of blasphemy and recommended same by a strong majority. In 2014 the previous Government, of which my party was a member, through the then Minister of State, now Senator Ó Ríordáin, announced in September that the Government had agreed to put the question of the removal of blasphemy from the Constitution to the people. Agreement was reached that a referendum would be held on the question of amending Article 40.6.1°.i of the Constitution to remove the offence. The previous Government accepted the report of the Constitutional Convention and I am glad that the Government has continued with that position and is now proposing to put it to the people.

It seems sensible that it would be done on the same day as the presidential election so that the cost will be minimal, given that polling stations will be open. There will be some additional costs through printing extra ballot papers, but to start quibbling about the cost of this measure, as with any constitutional referendum, misses the point. Let us look at the substance of this and be clear that this referendum has been recommended over many years by many expert groups, peoples' groups and successive Governments. The Minister of State also mentioned the Corway and Independent Newspapers case in 1999 in which Mr. Justice Barrington noted that it was for the Legislature to define the crime rather than for the courts. It was that case which the then Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, referred to when he brought the Defamation Bill before the Houses, proposing to create a new statutory offence of blasphemy in section 36.

Some, including Senator Mullen, have argued that this has not had any real impact, but I beg to differ on that point. It is very clear that the existence of that offence and its relatively recent introduction had an international impact. Ireland went against the EU norm in adopting a new statutory definition of blasphemy. We are an outlier within the EU in that regard. Other states have used our blasphemy offence as a model. It is fair to say that Pakistan and other states have pointed to our law as an example of a law they wish to pursue. It has also been used as a stick with which to beat us when we have been critical of regimes that have, for example, discriminated against religious minorities, including Christian minorities that have been repressed in certain countries. We need to be very clear that the existence of an offence of blasphemy, even if there have been no prosecutions, sends out a signal that other countries, individuals or regimes may use against us or against minorities in their own state. While no one has ever been charged with this offence, back in 2015 there was a rather embarrassing case of a complaint made at Ennis Garda Station about comments made by the actor Stephen Fry on the "The Meaning of Life" programme. At the time, former Minister Dermot Ahern said the blasphemy provision had been implemented with a view to making it virtually impossible to prosecute. That is not an appropriate way to legislate for a criminal offence either.

They would settle for it in Pakistan.

I am glad that the Government has stated it will repeal section 36 of the Defamation Act if the constitutional amendment is passed. That is appropriate. There should be no place in our law any more for blasphemy offences. We know from the history of blasphemy offences, which I will not rehearse again because we went through it in 2009, that they have typically been used by individual religions or members of a religion against others. They tend to be used not against non-religious people but rather to pursue religious ideological battles. There is no place in modern law for this sort of offence, in either the Constitution or in statute. The story about the actor Stephen Fry was picked up by the international media. It was an embarrassing moment and it highlighted the need to delete this outdated and obsolete section of the Constitution.

It is far from the case that believers are a persecuted minority in Ireland. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the school system will be well aware that 90% of primary schools remain controlled by and under the governance of the Catholic Church and 95% are under some form of religious control. Yesterday, I raised in the Seanad the very current issue concerning a particular school in Greystones. It is a Church of Ireland school in which a linkage has been made between church attendance and school enrolment to the distress of many parents in that community. I will be raising the matter further with the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Bruton. We need a further debate on the separation of church and State in reality and practice in our education and healthcare systems. Senator Ó Ríordáin has also been raising this issue in the House.

I am sorry that we will not have the opportunity to modernise the Constitution in one other respect on 26 October with the deletion of the outdated and sexist reference to women's place in the home. I know that the Minister of State wanted to put that to a referendum and I am sorry that we will not have the opportunity to vote on that too. The delay is unfortunate. We have had decades of debate on the matter and, like the blasphemy provision, there have been many reports that have recommended deletion. The time was now to delete that article and to have the bigger debate that is also necessary about how we can recognise the very important role of carers and the very important rights and needs of those who are cared for as well. It is unfortunate that this referendum has been delayed and I hope it will happen early in the new year.

The Labour Party group in the Seanad is proud to support the Bill.

The proposal to amend the Constitution is something which needs much more consideration than it has been given in public for a number of reasons. If one looks at the entire section of the Constitution and the article to do with free speech, it is quite clear that free speech and freedom of expression are guaranteed, subject to public order and morality. It is not an unqualified right of free speech and this amendment will not change that.

It is a curious feature of the proposed amendment of the Constitution that there has not been a fair analysis of what the term "public morality" as a constraint on the general right of freedom of expression actually means. Would there be a right to use freedom of expression as a defence for making statements in public, or publishing them, that would be considered blasphemous by most people if the right of the State to protect public morality is taken into account?

I approach this from a liberal perspective but I wonder why, in the terms of the Constitution, the criminalisation of blasphemy, indecency and sedition were expressly inserted by the sentence and paragraph with which we are dealing. They were expressly inserted as a qualification of the right to free speech. I have no doubt that historically it emanated from a desire to ensure free speech would not have been used, in the context of 1937, as a defence for what would otherwise have been considered outright blasphemy in publications or utterances. Therefore, this provision and this sentence must be looked at carefully.

We are leaving an article in the Constitution which says, oddly, that the utterance of sedition or indecency is an offence that is, and must be, punishable by law. That is an interesting concept. To utter something indecent is mandated by the Constitution as a criminal offence and punishable in accordance with law. The same is currently true of blasphemy. When one thinks about it, clearly it was not desirable that this kind of criminal legislation was inserted into the Constitution and that something was asserted to be a crime without defining it and it had to be a crime as a matter of constitutional obligation on the State and punishable in accordance with law. What is left when the word blasphemy is taken out? There remains an article saying the utterance or publication of indecency or sedition is an offence punishable by law. Sedition has a clear meaning. It is an undermining of the State and a challenge to the State's authority combined with some kind of urge of rejection and overthrow of the State's authority. That is what most people would understand by the term "seditious".

Indecency, on the other hand, is a concept that is utterly flexible depending on the mores of the time. What was considered indecent in 1937 is different to what is considered indecent today. Many things that are published and uttered today and are not considered indecent in 2018 would certainly have scandalised and shocked jurors and judges to the point of a certain conviction in 1937. We have a conundrum now that a paragraph is being left in the Constitution that says that the publication of seditious or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law but that blasphemy can never fall into that category.

Senator Bacik said she welcomed the proposal to repeal the section. I wonder about a possible case in which utter and gross blasphemy is published in a magazine. If something is published that would offend the great majority of practising Catholics, like a black mass, a complete inversion of the mass, or an association of it with something sexual, or defecatory, or something similar, is that not to be a criminal offence? Is that to be decriminalised but indecency to remain criminalised?

A better amendment would have been that the right of free speech and freedom of expression guaranteed by the article may be regulated by the State on the grounds of blasphemy, indecency or sedition and not to say it is a criminal offence punishable by law but merely say there is a right on the part of the Oireachtas to defend religious sensibility at some extreme level. I am mystified that we should now say nothing in Ireland can be prosecuted on the grounds that it causes massive offence by its blasphemous character and it cannot be restrained in any way, whereas something which is indecent - pornography of some kind, although these days it would have to be extreme pornography - is still to be criminalised under the Constitution.

This is an all Stages debate and it can be discussed again later, since we are dealing with the Second Stage now, but I would like the Minister of State to explain to me if he thinks that nothing could be published in Ireland of a blasphemous nature that should attract any sanction at all in any circumstance. To those who say we need to consider Islam, Judaism, Christianity and various other religions, I say we should remember that Christianity was the central religion of the community that adopted the Constitution and the Preamble still reflects that. I ask the Minister of State to be clear. Is it to be the case, as we discuss the principle of this, that nothing of whatever foul, offensive and demeaning nature, striking at the very heart of the Christian faith, can be sanctioned in any way by the State? That is a radical proposal.

I would like people to realise the withdrawal of this word from the Constitution, coupled with the Minister's stated intention to repeal the relevant sections of the Defamation Act, means that this is the situation that will exist after these two steps are taken. I wonder if the great majority of Irish people think that is a good idea. It could have been done differently. We could have said that the State "may" curtail the right of free speech to protect its authority through sedition, protect public morality through laws on indecency or protect religious sensibility on the grounds of blasphemy. We could have had a different clause in the Constitution. I doubt that most people would, hand on heart, say that in the future anything, no matter how offensive, no matter how repugnant to religion, can be published with impunity in the IState. Is that where we are going?

I thank Senators for what I first thought would be a brief debate but which has turned out to be a considered and thoughtful input into this discussion. Obviously, we are putting the question to the people, who will make the decision at the end of the day as to whether this is to be changed. It is the people's decision and, as has been mentioned by Senator Bacik and others, there have been many reports over the years which have advised that this be put to the people. The people will decide. Colleagues who do not agree can obviously campaign on it but we will see what happens when it goes to the people.

Again, I thank the Seanad for facilitating this debate. Most speakers have welcomed the proposal to remove the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution. If it is passed here today, the work of the Referendum Commission can begin in earnest. An order has already been made under the Referendum Act to establish the independent statutory Referendum Commission for the purpose of the referendum which is planned to be held on 26 October next, at the same time as the presidential election. Again, I think it is good practice to do that because, as mentioned by Senator Bacik and others, it reduces the cost and also facilitates people going to the polls in that they will be voting in the presidential election, and when they are there, they can also give their views on this. I understand that, in accordance with the Act, the Chief Justice has nominated Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy to act as chairperson to the commission. The principal purpose of the commission is to prepare, publish and distribute to the electorate statements containing a general explanation of the subject matter of the referendum proposal, to promote awareness of the referendum and to encourage the electorate to vote. The Government is immensely grateful to the commission for the work it will undertake.

A number of points have arisen in the debate. Some Senators, in particular Senator McDowell, queried the retention of the reference to sedition or indecent matter. I agree that the language is somewhat outdated but this referendum is not a general modernisation of the Constitution. The context is one aimed at removing a provision which may inhibit legitimate freedom of expression because it has the potential to criminalise that expression. There is positive harm here which the proposed constitutional amendment is intended to address. That amendment, if agreed, will also be a small step in emphasising the fact we are a tolerant and inclusive society where diversity and pluralism are evident and where engagement between those with different value systems can take place free of the shadow which the constitutional provision creates. These broader issues around diversity and tolerance do not arise in respect of the reference to sedition and indecency. I am sure we can all agree it is right and proper that there would, for example, be an offence relating to the production and distribution of child pornography. Senator McDowell mentioned in his comments that it would want to be very extreme indecency. However, such damaging material is out there and very available, about which we should all be very concerned.

As the years and decades go by, our understanding and definitions of these matters develop and change. Some of what was considered indecent in 1937 would not be considered indecent today. Likewise, I contend that some material and some offences will always be indecent, no matter what or when. That is the way it should be. We must be alert to that and keep debating it and I welcome the questioning on it. I agree with regard to the logic behind offences intended to criminalise acts aimed at attacking the constitutional order and institutions of the State and I suggest we are at one on that matter. However, there is not the same imperative to amend the Constitutioni n regard to these matters as there is in regard to blasphemy. The Senator spoke about extremes where religion is concerned. If we go that far, we get very quickly into the area of incitement of hatred. There is a balance to be struck in that regard also.

I am not sure whether Senator McDowell is for or against the proposal. I did not hear him say one thing or the other in the end. However, I welcome the questioning, which is important. We have general support for the Government's proposal in the House, which I welcome. I hope the tone of the campaign to come will also be respectful. I hope that when people see the merits of the proposal, they will vote for deletion. As I said, there have been repeated calls over the years for the removal of the blasphemy reference from the Constitution and there have been many advocates for change in this area. It has taken quite a while to bring this to the Houses but we now have an opportunity to deal with the matter and put it to the people. We are a modern and democratic society where freedom of expression is a core value and we no longer need a constitutional provision, however notional, that acts as an undesirable check to that value. I very much hope the proposal to remove the offence of blasphemy will get widespread support on 26 October next.

By way of response to Senator Mullen, the existence of the current constitutional provisions in regard to blasphemy creates an imperative to give effect to that provision in primary legislation. It does not matter that there have been no successful prosecutions of the offence in living memory. The provision is there and it identifies Ireland, however incorrectly, as a country which does not value freedom of expression and as a country which gives constitutional protections to a concept which many would regard as obsolete. Its very existence supports those in other countries where the concept of blasphemy has a very real meaning, a meaning which can entail considerable suffering for those who fall to be punished under the law which supports it. Senator Bacik and others have alluded to the fact that our situation has been used in other jurisdictions in support of that position.

Senator Mullen also raised the possibility that the blasphemy reference should be replaced by a general provision to include a prohibition on incitement to religious hatred. In reaching its decision as to the course of action to be followed, the Government is conscious of the fact the provision relating to incitement to hatred is likely to prove very difficult to draft at a practical level. Furthermore, the Government took the view that the Constitution was not the place to address this matter and that the specifics of any incitement to hatred provisions were best addressed in primary legislation, which could, if necessary, evolve over time in an organic way.

Again, I thank colleagues for a good debate and raising some important matters. I look forward to the remaining Stages.

We move to the Title.

I wanted to debate section 2.

We have already agreed to it. As I do not want to be dismissive, I will allow a brief debate. However, it was technically agreed to.

I wanted to discuss it further, however. The Minister of State has indicated that he intends to repeal the criminalisation of blasphemy. I should say that when I introduced a Bill to replace the Defamation Act 1961 I, as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, included nothing in respect of blasphemy, although I understand a subsequent Attorney General was of the view that repealing the 1961 Act without substituting a corresponding offence might itself be seen to be unconstitutional. I doubted that at the time. I thought the provision in the Constitution made the offence of blasphemy much like a common law misdemeanour, something that was unlawful and punishable. I thought that the phrase "punishable in accordance with law" did not require a statute but merely that there could be a criminal procedure to punish it and that a just penalty could be applied by the courts, as was the case with many common law misdemeanours for which no maximum penalty was ever set. The Attorney General who advised the Government after me apparently came to the view that it was mandatory to include in the Defamation Bill some alternative criminalisation of blasphemy on the basis that it was requisite on foot of the-----

For the record, this section has been agreed to. There cannot be a vote on it. I am allowing the Senator speak because he wanted to make a point but I am not going to open up a full debate again.

I do not want to have to table a Report Stage amendment, but I think that when we are amending the Constitution, we should discuss what we are doing.

The difficulty for me, as Cathaoirleach, is that when I put the question on section 2, it was agreed to with no opposition.

Unfortunately, I did not-----

The Senator raised his objection when I went on to the Title of the Bill.

I did not have the text of section 2 in front of me. When I was speaking, I did indicate that I intended to return to the matter at a later Stage in the debate.

It is a little like an auction. When the hammer falls, I cannot row back on the final bid.

That is fair enough. Let me make the following point.

If the Minister of State does proceed with his stated intention to repeal the provisions of the Defamation Act he will be saying that nobody, in any circumstances, can ever be prosecuted for publishing anything which deeply offends the religious sensibility of the Christian faith in Ireland no matter how gross the offence is. No matter how gross or how grotesque what is said or done, nobody can be punished. I do not think that most people are aware that the Government proposes not merely to remove from the Constitution the obligation to criminalise blasphemy, but that it also intends to declare it absolutely open season to say or do anything in public which outrages religious sentiment without any sanction of any kind whatsoever. I do not think most people are aware that is his intention and I do not think he has made that clear. I do not think the Government - I do not mean to personalise it to the Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, in any way - has stated it intends that, as of next week, any citizen will be able to put up on the Internet the grossest attack on religious belief in the most appalling and filthy way and that it will not be possible to do anything about it unless the Internet service provider intervenes to remove such material on the grounds of its own policies.

By all means, the Government could take this one word out of the Constitution, but if it goes the second step and states it believes a consequence of removing it is the decriminalisation of every form of blasphemy, no matter how gross it may be and if that is its thinking, it should face up to the consequences. God knows - I use that phrase loosely - that we have many people here who will choose to go as far as the law permits to offend others and to cause them distress and anger. We know that will happen. We really should consider carefully whether we want to go that second step.

The second point I want to make is that if we do repeal this particular reference to blasphemy in the Constitution it does not follow, either logically or in good sense, that any criminalisation of blasphemy must necessarily fall with it. The right to free speech is subject to public order and morality. It strikes me that there is a limitation written into the Constitution, which will not be affected by the particular amendment, which states that the exercise of freedom of expression is guaranteed subject to public morality. Can the Minister of State say, on behalf of the Government, that anything, not matter how offensive or outrageous, can be published about religion and, at the same time, not involve an infringement of public morality? I do not think he can.

If the Government does table legislation to amend the Defamation Act in order to decriminalise all forms of blasphemy, on the assumption that this particular measure will be passed by the people, that will have to be considered on its merits in those circumstances. This is not just a package to be sold to the people like repealing the eighth amendment and outlining the legislative consequences. This is not the same as that. I do not believe the great majority of people in this country want to have absolute and total open season on causing religious offence by publication. I do not believe the people would be happy to see every single vestige of protection of religion from premeditated and vicious blasphemy swept away in the name of liberalism and I speak as a liberal. People are entitled to have some basic standards of decency or public morality enshrined in the law with regard to the protection of religion. It is not a great expansion of freedom to tear down every barrier surrounding the sacredness to individuals of their religious beliefs.

The section has been agreed and I do not want to open up a debate because I was just about to read the Title to the Bill.

It is quite unusual to come back in again when a section has been agreed to.

That is why I am saying the Minister of State might be better off not-----

I just want to make it clear that the Bill should not be viewed as an attack on belief. Let us make that clear. It is not.

Obviously Senator McDowell can make these points which he believes are very valid during the debate on the matter.

The points will be welcomed in the debate on the Bill when it is brought before the House. That is probably the right time to hear them. I just want to be clear that this is not an attack on belief. It is an acknowledgement that a concept the meaning of which is unclear and which is rooted in a past in which loyalty to a state and loyalty to a particular religion were synonymous has no place in the Constitution today. Yes, the debate which the Senator has mentioned on the issue can certainly be had when that Bill is brought before the House.

Obviously, there will be a debate on this issue before the referendum is held if the Bill is agreed to. Therefore, there will be ample time to debate it.

Yes, if the amendment is agreed to. We cannot assume what the people are going to say.

It is a different matter if expression is geared towards inciting hatred or violence. I think the Senator is gesturing in that direction. That debate would be very important and very useful. Where there is that intention, the criminal law must come into play.

I want to make a few observations. Indecency is as flexible a concept as blasphemy. There were times when people who doubted and publicly refuted the biblical explanation of the garden of Eden and the story of Adam and Eve were accused of blasphemy. Obviously blasphemy as a concept is one which has changed with the passage of time, as has indecency. There is no doubt about that. The mere fact that the term "blasphemy" is difficult to pin down is not the problem here, because Members are quite happy to leave "indecency" in the Constitution and say the publication or utterance of indecent matter, whatever that means, must be punishable in accordance with law. That is what this amendment is actually setting out to do; to consciously leave that in the Constitution and to leave it to the law, to lawyers and juries in certain circumstances, to decide whether something is or is not indecent in the context of a criminal prosecution.

I would not have put this phrase into the Constitution at all had I been a constitutional draftsman. I do not think it is particularly necessary. However, the stated intention of the Government as announced by the Minister of State is to decriminalise everything that up to now could have been considered blasphemy. It is not just a matter of hatred or violence.

I refer to the Charlie Hebdo incident in Paris. The mere fact that one could say something about the Prophet Muhammad which was so offensive to people that they became violent could not possibly be grounds for prohibiting one from publishing the cartoon in the Charlie Hebdo case. It is not the reaction, the extremity of the reaction or the probable consequences that I am talking about. It is the actual concept of saying that freedom of expression carries with it the right to utterly deride, devalue and create contempt for the religious thoughts of others. What we are actually doing in twinning this constitutional amendment to a proposal to decriminalise blasphemy of whatever kind and in whatever circumstance is declaring open season for blasphemy hereafter. I repeat, open season. There is no constraint, unless, of course, some clever lawyer comes up with the idea that public morality brings blasphemy back in through the back door.

I do not believe we should simply passively watch this be removed in the context of a Government commitment to utterly decriminalise all forms of blasphemy, no matter how extreme and let it go without comment. That is the only reason I am contributing. I am a liberal. I have no problem whatsoever with people mocking each other's religions. I am not simply talking about "Father Ted" or something like it. I have no problem at all with people deriding the views of the Mormons or the Scientologists, if Scientology was to be considered a religion, or whoever else. I have no problem with people mocking and knocking the religious views of others. I am saying there are things at the very extreme about which a society is entitled to say, "That goes too far." I would like it to be noted that if, in the wake of this amendment being accepted by the people, legislation comes before the House to decriminalise all forms and all degrees of blasphemy of every kind, we should have a long and searching debate, far more elaborate than we are having this afternoon, on whether that is what the people really want to do.

Tairgim:

“GO nDÉANFAR an ráiteas atá leagtha amach sa Sceideal a ghabhann leis an Rún seo a fhorordú mar eolas do vótálaithe, de bhun alt 23 d’Acht an Reifrinn, 1994 (Uimh. 12 de 1994), i ndáil leis an togra chun an Bunreacht a leasú, atá ar áireamh sa Bhille um an Seachtú Leasú is Tríocha ar an mBunreacht (Cion a aisghairm arb éard é ní diamhaslach a fhoilsiú nó a aithris), 2018 agus is ábhar do reifreann bunreachta.

An Sceideal

Ráiteas mar Eolas do Vótálaithe An Bille um an Seachtú Leasú is Tríocha ar an mBunreacht (Cion a aisghairm arb éard é ní diamhaslach a fhoilsiú nó a aithris), 2018 – Páipéar Ballóide Uaine

Fiafraítear díot sa reifreann seo an aontaíonn tú leis an togra chun Airteagal 40 den Bhunreacht a leasú chun an cion a aisghairm arb éard é ní diamhaslach a fhoilsiú nó a aithris.

Má thoilíonn tú leis an togra, cuir X os coinne an fhocail Tá ar an bpáipéar ballóide.

Mura dtoilíonn tú leis an togra, cuir X os coinne an fhocail Níl ar an bpáipéar ballóide.

Is féidir teacht ar chóip den Bhille ar an idirlíon ar www.oireachtas.ie.

I move:

THAT the statement set out in the Schedule to this Resolution be prescribed for the information of voters, pursuant to section 23 of the Referendum Act 1994 (No. 12 of 1994), in relation to the proposal to amend the Constitution which is contained in the Thirtyseventh Amendment of the Constitution (Repeal of offence of publication or utterance of blasphemous matter) Bill 2018 and is the subject of a constitutional referendum.

Schedule

Statement for the Information of Voters Thirty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution (Repeal of offence of publication or utterance of blasphemous matter) Bill 2018 – Green Ballot Paper

You are being asked in this referendum if you agree with the proposal to amend Article 40 of the Constitution to repeal the offence of publication or utterance of blasphemous matter.

If you approve of the proposal, mark X opposite the word Yes on the ballot paper.

If you do not approve of the proposal, mark X opposite the word No on the ballot paper.

A copy of the Bill may be viewed on the internet at www.oireachtas.ie.

When is it proposed to sit again?

Next Tuesday at 2.30 p.m.