Statements on Nursing Homes - 1st June 2005

Statements on Nursing Homes - 1st June 2005

Mr. Norris: I agree with Senator MacSharry,
but he scored a few points in his earlier remarks.
However, it is a matter which should not be
treated in such a manner, as one which affects the
whole community. I have already spoken on the
Order of Business and several times this week on
this issue. A great deal of good sense has been
spoken on both sides of the House, so I do not
intend to use my full allocation of time. I understood
there were only eight minutes, but apparently
that has been extended.
An Cathaoirleach: It is 15 minutes.
Mr. Norris: I will not need that amount of time.
However, it is important that a representative of
the Independent group joins with other Members
in saying that this situation must be addressed.
I beg the Cathaoirleach’s pardon. I am interpreting
his gestures and his sign language as asking
me, in effect, whether I would like to share
time with Senator Ormonde. I am grateful to him
for the suggestion. Will the House permit me to
share——
Mr. Norris: Perhaps the Cathaoirleach might
let me know when I have spoken for half the
allotted time.
I agree with those who have said this was a
remarkable piece of reporting by RTE. It took
a great deal of technical ingenuity using a small
camera, whether in a tie pin or whatever. The visual
image was very clear. The sound was also
quite good. It was remarkable. That is what I call
real investigative journalism. We sometimes hear
people talk about investigative journalism and
really what they mean is snooping into the sex
lives of pop stars and so on. I do not regard that
as investigative journalism, but I regard this programme
as good investigative journalism because
it highlighted a situation which needs to be
addressed and brought it to the attention of the
public and the Government.
I learned a great deal from the programme. I
have had elderly relatives and connections in
homes. My aunt, whom I absolutely adored, went
into the Alexandra Guild House. It nearly closed
but with the assistance of colleagues here I managed
to put forward a programme to rescue it.
Some 30 old ladies were given the stability of continuing
to live there. It is a wonderful place. They
do their own home baking. The staff absolutely
adore their patients. It was a home in the sense of
being a place where a community lived. I enjoyed
going there. However, I know that people are
afraid of the idea of nursing home because they
fear the sinister elements surrounding such
homes. My aunt lived to the age of 103. She had
very little wrong with her until, at the age of 102,
she fell and broke her hip. She was transferred to
a State facility. I do not want to completely blame
the people there because they are under great
pressure but my aunt almost immediately
developed a bed sore. It was only when she got
back to the Alexandra Guild House that the staff
there cured it.
I believe people develop such sores because
there is such pressure on the nursing profession
that they are not able to do what they are
required to do. Elderly people can be quite
intractable sometimes. Many of the people in
these homes are confused and a little contrary.
The nurses should turn such patients every three
hours and so on but with the pressure they are
under they do not do so, and I am sure about that.
In light of my experience, I agree it is
important to inspect private nursing homes
because this is to where our attention has been
drawn but it is unacceptable that there is no
inspection of the State nursing homes and there
should be. In the case of private nursing homes,
inspections are supposed to be carried out twi
a year but they are not.
Some time ago I raised a matter on the
Adjournment brought to my attention by a person
in my neighbourhood who cherished his
mother who was put into St. Mary’s Hospital in
the Phoenix Park. Her son complained about the
conditions in that hospital. I wrote a snotty letter
to the director of that hospital and I got a snotty
letter back and, as often happens in my life, that
was the beginning of a friendship. The director
said that if I was so interested in this issue, I
should show some realism and come out to see
the staff there. I said "What a good idea, I will".
I went out and had a look and I have to say I
admire the medical professionals, the nurses, the
physiotherapists, the occupational therapists and
so on who work in these disastrous conditions.
They are absolutely awful. In one place there
were leaks from a converted swimming pool.
There was one lavatory for two wards. In such
circumstances, how can facilities be kept clean?
In those circumstances, I pity the staff as much as
the patients. Some of the patients were quite
happy and they were looked after as well as possible
but some of them were clearly distressed.
As a friend of James Joyce, an old lady whom
I knew in Zurich said to me, "David, age is a
cage; it is not always attractive". One is very
lucky if, like my aunt, one keeps physically well,
mentally alert and emotionally balanced. Many
people do not. They are confused, feel threatened
and think they are not able to afford to stay in
these places. They are worried about their meals
and their families. I know of cases where one can
visit a patient and ten minutes later receive a call
in one’s car — as was the case with another relative
of mine — to inquire why one had not been
in to see that person in a fortnight. These people
are confused and difficult. They need our care as
much as possible.
There are not enough inspectors and they do
not have proper powers. What is the point in
inspecting if there is nothing one can do? The
only point of having inspectors is if they are able
to impose a sanction. The two sanctions that
should be available are the power to close a nursing
home or the power to impose a fine. Some of
these places can well afford to pay such a fine.
I read in a newspaper today that Leas Cross was
doing all right. It made a profit of something like
\60,000 and last year it made a profit of \500,000
on foot of a grant.
I listened to a radio programme yesterday and
was interested to hear a woman who rang in who
was a member of the staff of that nursing home.
She said she was horrified by the programme.
Maybe I am gullible but I believed her. She said
she was in a different unit and absolutely loved
her elderly patients. She sounded sincere. It may
be that even within that nursing home there are
different levels of care.
I mentioned the problem of bed sores which
I also mentioned the other day. I thought that
developing a bed sore was inevitable after a certain
age but this is not the case if a patient is
turned in bed and so on. A connection of mine, a
Hungarian lady, got one of these awful things and
I thought it was inevitable but it was not. We
need to make some further degree of investment
in this area to protect people whose number we
may, if we are lucky, join and we will expect our
successors in this House to look after our
interests.
I noticed one of the rather unpleasant nurses
who was pushing his fingers into a patient’s face,
shouting at her and making inappropriate
remarks and so on — his behaviour was not such
that it could be described as criminal, it just
seemed to be terribly unpleasant — but he was
continually referred to as a Filipino. That is not
fair because there are many wonderful, kind,
gentle and good Filipino nurses. Our hospital
system would be swept away without them.

Disability Bill 2004 - Second Stage Debate on the 1st June 2005

Disability Bill 2004 - Second Stage Debate on 1st June 2005

Mr. Norris: I also compliment the Leader of
the House, since the material I received from the
Disability Federation of Ireland stated she had
given it an undertaking that there would be ample
time for discussion of the Bill in the House. It is
clear from the provision of time yesterday, today
and tomorrow that there will be such provision.
That is very good.
The Bill is a kind of dialectic. An earlier Bill
had to be withdrawn because it was plainly unsatisfactory.
I have no difficulty in agreeing with
what was said by Senator Dardis in his reasonable
speech. Other things may need to be tidied up
and I understand from the Minister’s speech that
he is tabling further Government amendments.
This Bill is in the process of being improved all
the time and this Chamber will play a role in that.
I am glad the Minister has accepted the idea of
a review. I made this point in discussions with
groups representing people with disabilities as I
thought it was a sensible thing. They told me that
they had already made a suggestion of three
years, but the Minister suggested five years and
they seemed to be quite comfortable with that.
Minister of State at the Department of Justice,
Equality and Law Reform (Mr. Fahey): Within
five years?
Mr. Norris: Yes. As a former teacher, it seems
to me that a continuous assessment would be a
good idea. Having a review at the end of three or
five years is not the best way to do it. A process of
continuous assessment from the beginning gives a
far better chance of reaching down into the consequences
of the Bill and finding out what
happens.
Part 3 is the most significant element of the
Bill, as it deals with access to services, public
buildings and so on, as well as the sectoral plans.
We must arrive at a situation where disability
becomes a prime factor in Government policy
and is factored into every Department. Someone
in each Department should be charged with
responsibility to enforce such a policy. Perhaps it
should be the General Secretary.
In a briefing Senator Quinn and I had with disability
groups yesterday, we were told that \38
billion is spent on health services and people with
disabilities get around 3% of that which is
roughly proportional to their size. However, they
made the point that they are excluded from many
of the services provided for everybody else by virtue
of their circumstances which could be remedied
without a huge amount of expense. The
Government has taken a practical view on this,
which is understandable, but one which is open
for us to challenge. Many people fear that a financial
haemorrhage from a rights-based Bill could
affect the Exchequer. They also fear that it would
be left to the courts to deliver services.
Many people talk about rights — I have been
talking about them all of my life. I have come to
the conclusion that rights are of no use unless one
is in a position to exercise them. One can have
theoretical rights, but unless there are practical
mechanisms whereby one can obtain these rights,
then they are of virtually no use at all.
I was listening to the radio last night and there
was a very good programme about an awards
scheme that was won by a group from the west
of Ireland. The scheme dealt with disability. The
students got themselves into wheelchairs and
went around the town with their companions.
They were helped consistently by members of the
public, but those people never spoke to the
people in the wheelchair. They always spoke to
the person who was with the person in the wheelchair.
The young girl interviewed made the point
that she had a problem with her legs and not with
her brain. This is why people need consultation
and the Government has gone some way to meeting
that need.
I listened to the programme "Outside the
Box", presented by Olan McGowan who had an
accident in his twenties and is now in a wheelchair.
There was a discussion on disability and a
woman representing the blind claimed that he
should be able to play for Ireland or climb Kilimanjaro,
only if it was made accessible. That is at
the outer limit of political correctness and Mr.
McGowan fortunately pointed out that we must
live in the real world. We must attempt to
imagine what the situation is like in human terms,
so that we can be in a position to understand the
desire for rights on the part of the disabled community.
On the other hand, we also need to be
realistic. The Government is moving to some
extent in this direction.
I have a document in front of me from the Disability
Federation of Ireland, indicating that it is
aware that the legislation is coming before the
Seanad. The document states:
If this legislation goes through without major
changes, the DLCG and its member organisations
will be left with no option but to reassess
our future co-operation with the Government,
Departments and agencies. We may also consider
a nationwide campaign to alert the general
public to the failure of the Government to
meet our legislative needs.
The federation feels that the Bill needs to focus
on two matters to ensure that people have timely
access to the necessary specialist services and to
ensure that what Ireland has to offer becomes
fully accessible to people with disabilities.
We have not gone far enough in this Bill and I
hope the Minister of State addresses some of the
issues that have been brought to his attention by
the Disability Federation of Ireland. He has
included the Ombudsman in the Bill, but I am
not sure if that is needed. It has been suggested
to me that a disability commissioner is more
appropriate. If the Minister of State accepted
that, it would go a long way towards meeting the
problems of the disabled community.
Mr. Fahey: That is not as strong as the
Ombudsman.
Mr. Norris: That is surprising, given that the
Ombudsman has much on her plate already.
Mr. Fahey: There will be a new division within
the Office of the Ombudsman.
Mr. Norris: I see. Why not have a disability
ombudsman with just this remit?
Mr. Fahey: That is what the appeals officer
does, if we give him the choice.
Mr. Norris: That is an interesting comment and
I will pass it on to the Disability Federation of
Ireland. Its representatives were very interested
in the idea of a disability commissioner based on
the precedent of the language commissioner that
was created recently.
Mr. Fahey: I suggest that the language commissioner
is not at all as strong as the
Ombudsman.
Mr. Norris: I will relay that point back to the
disability groups. I am glad there will be a separate
section in the Office of the Ombusdman. I
understood from the speech by the Minister of
State that it was all coming under the remit of the
Ombudsman, who is already over-burdened. If
the Minister of State can assure the House that
there will be staffing and funding specifically
dedicated to the issue, the Disability Federation
of Ireland may well think that is a very good idea.
The federation also states: "The value of the
public investment is not around whether, for
example, the wheelchair was purchased at the
best possible price or terms, but by the measure
of how it facilitates access for that individual". I
do not see how the two are incompatible. It is a
requirement of the Government to get the best
deal if it is buying services with taxpayers’ money.
Senator Dardis mentioned a number of ways in
which the Government has moved to meet some
of these concerns and the DFI has accepted the
changes.
However, the Government’s response to calls
for the service preferences of the individual to be
considered in the assessment process is that there
will now be a requirement to "note the views" of
the person being assessed. This is entirely
ineffective. I have had my views noted until I am
weary of expressing them but nothing is achieved.
Mr. Kett: Senator Norris’s views have been
noted and ignored.
Mr. Norris: This provision must be copperfastened.
This will have been a useful debate if we have
teased this much out, namely, the clear commitment
to the House by the Minister of State that
there will be ring-fencing of the staffing and
resources for a new section within the Office of
the Ombudsman. That will satisfy the requirements
of the DFI. I am also confident that the
other points made by our briefing group will be
adequately——



Disability Bill 2004 - Committee Stage - 15th June 2005


Mr. Norris: I support Senator O’Meara. This is
an important point. It is instructive, interesting
and perhaps indicative that Senator Kett has
found himself in large measure in agreement. Perhaps
this indicates the Government may be prepared
to look again at the issue. While it is useful
that people can challenge on the basis that procedures
were not fully followed, the contents of
the assessment are the core of the entire matter.
I wish to raise a parallel issue, one where the
issue of the contents of an assessment might be
raised, but which has not been dealt with satisfactorily.
I refer to the inclusion of people with multiple
sclerosis in the definition of disability. Such
people might seek an assessment but they would
in many cases want to challenge an assessment,
multiple sclerosis being a particular kind of disease
from which there can be periods of
remission.
The exclusion of people with multiple sclerosis
from the definition of disability, which seems
quite deliberate on the part of the Government,
is greatly worrying and will lead to circumstances
where they will almost invariably want to challenge
the contents of the assessment. I put it to
the Minister of State that the United Kingdom in
its legislation had a very similar definition which
excluded multiple sclerosis, but it had to change
it. In other words, it changed legislation similar
to that we are now introducing. In any case, we
will probably have to change this legislation
eventually as a result of pressure and the public
highlighting of the issue.
The Multiple Sclerosis Society of Ireland wrote
to the Minister asking for this disease to be
included in the definition of disability but it has
not received a reply — perhaps I should say the
society wrote to the Department as I do not know
the Minister has seen this correspondence and do
not want to antagonise him by suggesting that.
For that reason, I intend to put down an amendment
on Report Stage to include multiple
sclerosis in the definition of disability.
I understand I am wandering slightly but this
issue is clearly related to the amendment, which
I strongly support.

Motion on Nuclear Plants - 25th May 2005

Motion on Nuclear Plants - 25th May 2005

Mr. Norris: I apologise for my lack of a script.
I gather Senator Ross objected to the number of
people reading from scripts. I would read from
one if I had one but I only have my own disconnected
thoughts.
Although this debate has taken place many
times over the years, and I used to take a principled
and sometimes leading part in it, we are
now so used to it and so accustomed to being
rebuffed by the British that a certain life has gone
out of the debate. The unanimity of the House,
however, is significant. I hope the unanimous
passing of this clear and specific motion will provide
a significant weapon for the Minister. I hope
that the Taoiseach, who enjoys a close relationship
with Mr. Blair, might be able to use this in
discussions with him because it is unacceptable
that there is an accident on 18 April and we are
not told about it until 21 April. That was coyly
skated over in the script I received. It is outrageous
that the British waited three days to let
us know about an accident.
The Minister had to go elsewhere for more
important matters but in his absence, the Minister
of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, made a remarkable
contribution. If anything nasty goes off in Sellafield,
I suggest the Minister of State makes the
announcement because he read his script in such
a reassuring fashion with no hint of excitement
whatsoever, not even the mildest modulation of
tone. If he were to make the announcement the
Irish people would be immensely reassured.
Unlike him, however, I will be unable to take
the cyanide tablets or whatever the Government
provided.
I never got any. The Minister did
not get any either. That is a national scandal, I
feel a tribunal coming on. They are not the slightest
use anyway so I am not too deprived but I
would have liked to have seen what they looked
like. I had to contact the Minister’s predecessor
to get my millennium candle as well so the north
side is deprived, with neither iodine tablets nor
candles. We need the candles because when the
lights go out across Europe, we will need to light
our millennium candles to see where we put the
iodine tablets.
The Minister of State’s speech dealt effectively
with the court cases but the outcome, even
though it is a marginal advance, represents what
in the game "relievio" are called baby steps. The
plant was told they must make a better attempt
to communicate and there was nothing mandatory
in the judgment. That is a pity and I hope
this motion encourages the Minister to continue
his efforts to get this matter properly resolved.
This has all happened in my lifetime. Until
1947, Sellafield was a straightforward munitions
factory. In 1947 it decided to go into the nuclear
business and by 1949 had generated enough
radioactive material to explode a bomb in Australia.
I remember clearly the fire in 1957 at what
was then called Windscale. In 1949 there was
already a 2 km pipeline discharging radioactive
material but that was controlled while the 1957
incident was an uncontrolled discharge of radioactive
material into the atmosphere. There are
lingering suspicions that this has a connection
with clusters of leukemia around Dundalk. I have
a feeling in my bones that there is a connection,
although it is difficult to prove scientifically. Certainly
there are parallel clusters of leukemia
occurring in the children of those who were
workers at Sellafield.
The fire in 1957 was a disaster greater in scale
than the incident at Three Mile Island in America.
That is the risk we face. Why are we facing
it? Even the British accept it is an economic nonsense.
It was always an economic nonsense and a
loss maker, so why did BNFL go into it? It could
not even get that right because it lied and falsified
material, alienating its largest client, Japan. For
no economic advantage to the British Exchequer
and in a manner that alienates not just Ireland
but also Norway, which was co-plaintiff in the
case, BNFL is transporting dangerous materials
to be reprocessed from all over the world through
the Irish Sea and by aeroplane. There are concerns
that these convoys, either at sea or on railway
tracks, could be the subject of a terrorist
attack. That is not likely but it is a possibility that
must be examined. There is also the possibility of
an aeroplane being crashed into the plant, considering
the Americans did not manage to stop a
similar attack on the Pentagon. This would result
in the discharge of 8 million litres of material
which is an enormous amount. We have the most
radioactive sea about which there are music hall
jokes. We are directly concerned in getting the
British Government to take a proper view on
the matter.
The report of the European Parliament’s scientific
and technological options assessment concluded
that radioactive discharges from the Sellafield
and La Hague sites are the largest
anthropogenic releases of nuclides in the world.
It also concluded significant increases in the
incidence of leukaemia has occurred both near La
Hague and the Sellafield reprocessing plant. This
report is not suggesting post hoc ergo propter hoc
which as the Minister of State knows is most
often a logical fallacy.
The report also concluded that the release of a
fraction of high-level radioactive waste at Sellafield
will be several dozen times greater than the
release at Chernobyl and cause over 1 million
fatal cancers. Any Member who has seen what
happened at Chernobyl, even on television, will
be alarmed. It also notes dissatisfaction with the
European Commission’s verification procedures.
I strongly support this motion. In some ways I
looked at it with a certain degree of light-heartedness
but it does not detract from the strong
support I give it. I congratulate the Minister for
the Environment, Heritage and Local Government
and the Government on their work so far,
but more must be done. The Minister must use
this motion, which will be passed unanimously, as
a political instrument with his colleagues across
the Irish sea.

Statements on Foreign Conflicts - 25th May 2005

Statements on Foreign Conflicts - 25th May 2005.

Mr. Norris: I welcome the Minister of State at
the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy
Conor Lenihan, and thank him for his introductory
remarks. It is a pleasure to follow the civilised
and humane contribution of Senator Lydon,
who went straight to the heart of the matter of
the impact on the lives of ordinary decent Iraqis.
They are trying to live out their little lives, keep
their families together, educate their children and
feed themselves. The intervention of the US by
its invasion and war of terror has been a catastrophe
for them.
The Minister of State spoke of assisting the
Iraqi people to make a better life for themselves.
Electricity provision and water resources are
worse than under Saddam Hussein. The civilian
casualty rate is enormous. It has been estimated
by a reputable American academic study that as a
consequence of the war, there were over 100,000
direct and indirect military casualties. This figure
is unchallengeable. One of the most sinister
aspects of the American attitude to this is that it
makes no attempt to report the number of casualties,
especially civilian ones. We do not know
what went on in Falluja.
The war was supposed to make matters better.
Has it? The situation in Iraq is widely regarded
by the most reputable international commentators
as an economic catastrophe. Living standards
are declining with an increase in poverty,
child malnutrition and a 65% unemployment
rate. The World Food Programme suggests that
one in four Iraqis have to survive on food rations
distributed by the ministry of trade, while 2.6 million
Iraqis are estimated to be so poor that they
regularly sell a portion of their rations to meet
other needs. A newspaper reported last week that
some Iraqis have resorted to selling their organs,
such as kidneys, to survive. This is what we have
inflicted on them.
I was one of the few people who protested
against the Iran-Iraq war and objected to Ireland
selling beef to Iraq at the time. I protested at the
events at Halabja and when Mr. Rumsfeld was
happy to give another hug to Saddam Hussein.
Some companies close to the US Administration,
such as Halliburton, have produced new water
purification plants. However, they have handed
them over to untrained Iraqi workers with the
result that water purity standards have gone
adrift.
The Minister of State was correct on Saddam
Hussein’s regime. It was an evil and dreadful
regime which engaged in gas and chemical warfare,
indiscriminate ballistic missile bombardment
of cities and ecological destruction intended to
damage its perceived enemies. Does that not
sound a little like the American position? Is this
what they have done? Do Members recall the socalled
"shock and awe" campaign, involving the
obscene fireworks displays we were treated to
every night on television? Mention was made of
Vietnam. What about the defoliants possibly used
in Iraq?
The Minister of State says that we all hope the
political process will prevail over violence. Quite
so, but the Americans tried to make sure that
would not happen. There was an opportunity to
negotiate and there were arms inspectors in Iraq,
but the Americans planned the outcome. Vice
President Cheney and his cronies in Halliburton
were planning the attack on Iraq well before 11
September, 2001, which provided a sort of fig
leaf. Elections were also held, but the Minister of
State knows as well as I do that most people hold
that elections held in an occupied territory by an
invading army are always suspect.
Let us consider the man the Iraqi elections
threw up as President, Mr. Talabani, who has
revolved so often that he is the whirling dervish
of Iraqi politics. He has been in every conceivable
party. He was a Marxist-Leninist at one stage,
and a member of the PLO under George Habash.
He is a complete opportunist. He has certain
things in common with Mr. Rumsfeld. There is a
photograph in circulation of Mr. Talibani kissing
Saddam Hussein after an agreement in 1991, not
very long after the poison gas attack on Halabja.
There are quite widespread suspicions about
many of these people.
The Minister of State spoke of the international
conference. I welcome that but the
intention is to demonstrate support for the new
Iraqi Government. I do not want something like
that. Let us have a conference investigating the
situation, one which lets us see what is going on
in Iraq, and not a rubber stamp for American tyranny,
which is what it is.
What is this bleating about democracy? When
did America welcome democracy? It did not do
so in Chile, where it bumped off Allende. It did
not welcome democracy in Nicaragua, where
America subverted a democratic government.
America likes planting democracy where it will
cause trouble for Russia. In selected states
around the Russian borders, America promotes
what it describes as democracy, but that is done
as an aggressive tactic, rather than in the interests
of the people.
I will quote some remarks by Halliburton
executives and by people in the American
Administration. "Iraq is the new Klondyke" is a
very widely quoted phrase. "War is a growth
opportunity" is a phrase which reflects the mentality,
the psychology we are dealing with in the
present American Administration.
The word "insurgency" was also used in the
speech by the Minister of State. That word is
being used to discredit people who resist. Those
people are part of a resistance. I do not always
like their tactics, and I deplore the attacks on
markets and mosques, but only 4.5% of operations
conducted by this resistance hit civilian targets.
That fact has been concealed. More than
95% of the attacks are directed against military
targets, including the Americans, but the latter
control the information in this regard. I deplore
everything that negatively affects the civilian
population of Iraq.
Senator Bradford mentioned the Amnesty
International report, which is important. I have a
copy of the press release, though it was embargoed
until 11 a.m. One of the main points it
makes is that governments are betraying their
human rights promises. It states:
A new agenda is in the making, with the language
of freedom and justice being used to pursue
policies of fear and insecurity. This includes
cynical attempts to redefine and sanitise
torture.
This is exactly what is happening under the
American imperium.
The events of 11 September 2001 have been
used as an excuse, an alibi, to erode human rights
all over the world, particularly in the United
States and Britain. I feel very ashamed that anyone
can use words like "democracy" in the same
context when introducing torture practices not
seen since the Gestapo. One such practice is
"waterboarding" where, with doctors present, a
person is tied to a board and drowned to the
point of the lungs being about to burst, and then
revived. This is what the Americans are doing.
One must consider the use of language. In the
run-up to the Nazi tyranny, the system of language
went on the slide. That was done to prepare
people for tyranny. The Amnesty International
report tells of the attempts by the United States
Administration to dilute the absolute ban on torture
through new policies and quasi-management
speak such as environmental manipulation, stress
positions and sensory manipulation.
The report left out the term "extraordinary
rendition", in which this country is implicated
through the use of Shannon Airport. This is a
policy under which the United States Government,
through its agencies such as the CIA, feels
perfectly entitled to snatch the citizens of other
countries, either in their own countries or elsewhere,
and refer them to third locations, notably,
Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Afghanistan where they
can be tortured, sometimes to death, in the presence
of the CIA. Amnesty International noted
one case of a man snatched in this way who disappeared
in Syria. Nothing has been heard of him.
I doubt very much if he is alive.
What kind of democracy is this? Does this
undermine democracy? Even from a practical
point of view, a large section of the CIA is
opposed to this practice because the information
it squeezes out of people using these brutal, Nazistyle
tactics, is so unreliable. It leads the CIA off
on wild goose chases. It is therefore counter-productive,
though only in terms of information,
because ultimately, this war is about money,
power and oil. There is little doubt about that.
The war is creating a huge cost, as several
members have said, and has now cost as much as
the Korean War.
While framed against a battleship, President
Bush told us the Iraqi war was over. That must
be almost a year ago. Fighting in Iraq has been
prolonged and intense, so the costs have continued
to rise. US Congressman John Spratt said
that fighting in Iraq is lasting longer and is more
intense than anyone expected, and the cost of
keeping troops in the theatre of operations is
greater than anyone anticipated. So far, $192
billion has been approved by Congress for the
war. Where is it going? It is going into the pockets
of Mr. Cheney’s friends in Halliburton and
Kellogg, Brown and Root. For five years, Mr.
Cheney was chief executive of Halliburton, the
world’s largest oil and gas company. He continues
to receive deferred payments of $150,000 annually
and holds shares in the company valued at
$18 million, but there is no question of a conflict
of interests. Under Mr. Cheney, in 2003 a secret
task force in the Bush Administration picked
Halliburton to receive a non-competitive contract
for up to $7 billion to rebuild Iraq’s oil operations.
Why did Halliburton get special treatment?
Could that have anything to do with Mr.
Cheney?
In the course of buying and transporting oil
from Kuwait, Halliburton overcharged the
American Government by $61 million. I am sure
that many people remember the celebrated
occasion when Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg,
Brown and Root, overcharged the American
Government $16 million for the feeding of the
troops. Halliburton has become a sort of unofficial,
unacknowledged arm of the American
military establishment. This is exactly what a
Republican American President, Eisenhower,
warned against, namely, the intrusion of the
military-industrial complex into the political
arena. However, this is what has happened and it
is very dangerous. Where does all of this come
from? It is notable that Haliburton was one of
the largest political contributors in the run-up to
the elections in the United States. Naturally, it
received a reward for this and views the opportunities
in Iraq as a new Klondyke.
A search committee was set up, under Mr.
Cheney, to find a new vice-president and it suggested
that the best new vice-president would be
Mr. Cheney himself. That is most extraordinary.
I cannot put on the record of the House the language
used by one of his former colleagues when
this fact was discovered.
I am concerned about corruption and the level
of inter-penetration between military and commercial
enterprises. For example, a company
called Free Market Global, an international company
that trades in gas, petroleum and other
resources, appointed General Tommy Franks, the
US army commander, to its board last year. That
should give cause for concern to anyone who
poses as a democrat.
There are many reasons to be worried. Mr.
Cheney formed an interesting group which, in
February 2001, prior to September 11, was
already planning a merger of interests, or a
"melding" as they described it. Those interests
planning to attack Iraq and create regime change
were to be melded with those interested in the
takeover of certain international oil fields.
Nobody should doubt that this was all in the pipeline
before September 11.
As far as September 11 is concerned, I agree it
was a tragedy but one that needs to be kept in
proportion. Approximately 3,000 people were
killed and for those people and their families, it
was dreadful. I will never forget the images of
people falling out of skyscrapers, but what did
they expect? The US cannot go around trampling
on other people’s rights, murdering half a million
people in Kampuchea, devastating Vietnam,
undermining every democratic regime that is
viewed to be inimical to their interests and then
expect people to do nothing.
I do not believe there is an Islamic threat. The
belief that civilisation will be wiped out by Islamic
fundamentalists is hysterical. Our civilisation is
most in danger from what is happening under the
so-called coalition forces.
We should look to George Galloway, who
faced down the Senate inquiry. US Senators were
using false documents and Mr. Galloway gave
them their answer, beautifully, in the Senate. I
was ashamed last Sunday to read an article by an
ignorant, stupid reporter, who attacked Galloway
and attempted to undermine him. She did not
attack anything he said but rather his clothes, eating
habits, sexual predilections and his sun tan.
She did not contradict a single word he said.