Order of Business - 31st January 2007

Order of Business - 31st January 2007
Mr. Norris: I understand Senator Brian Hayes raised the question of the urgent situation in St. James’s Hospital and I wish to support what I understand he said. The situation is extremely serious. It would be wise if the Minister were able to come into the House to explain how this was arrived at and how it can be resolved. I have never attacked the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney. She has shown great courage in taking this job and I always believed she should be given time for the policies to take effect. However, this is critical and urgent. The ICU is full. Serious operations which are necessary and vital are being cancelled as we speak.
The ideology behind all these private hospitals and the invocation of competition should be examined. The rubbish we repeatedly hear about competition has damaged the interests of ordinary people. I am not an ideologue but if I were offered a choice between competition and proper treatment in hospital, like everybody else with his or her head screwed on the right way, I would choose the latter. I am not attacking the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney. I would like her to come to the House because citizens are entitled to know the reasons they are not receiving proper treatment. Let us have a proper national health service in which everybody in the country is covered and let the Government pay for those who cannot afford cover.
I propose a conditional amendment to the Order of Business. The Leader is a remarkable, fine and honourable woman. For this reason, I am very sorry to see the amendment submitted in her name and written not by her but the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is a tissue of lies, evasions and hypocrisy and unless it is withdrawn, I will propose an amendment to the Order of Business that the House instead discuss No. 34 in the name of the Independents which deals with the issue addressed in the amendment.
I will substantiate my description of the amendment as a tissue of lies. It states that the Government “responded urgently from the outset to allegations of extraordinary rendition” and co-operated to the fullest extent with the investigation carried out by a committee of the European Parliament. That is not true.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator’s amendment is not in order.
Mr. Norris: Why not?
An Cathaoirleach: The matter will be discussed when the House deals with the business in question.
Mr. Norris: In that case, as I anticipate that the Leader will not be able to withdraw the amendment, I propose that the House deals with No. 34 first. Is that in order?
An Cathaoirleach: That would be in order.
Mr. Norris: I will make such a proposal which I encourage Senators to support. The Government states it co-operated with the European Parliament’s investigation to the fullest possible extent. It did not do so.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator may not make a speech on the Order of Business.
Mr. Norris: Co-operation is not a one-way street. If the other party clearly and publicly states the Government did not co-operate and refused to answer questions, the Government’s approach cannot be described as one of co-operation. The amendment states the TDIP committee is under the impression that the Government directs the work of the Oireachtas.
A Senator: That is not true.
Mr. Norris: The amendment refers to the Government having offered full co-operation. That is a downright lie. It commends the Government on its policy of early and proactive engagement with the US authorities. It did not pursue such a policy.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator must conclude. The House cannot debate an individual item on the Order of Business.
Mr. Norris: My final point is that it is perfectly clear-----
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator may not make a final point. I call Senator Dooley.
Mr. Norris: -----that, to the shame of the Government, aircraft engaged in rendition flights were fuelled when returning through Shannon Airport.