Order of Business - 12th October 2005

The Order of Business – 12th October 2005

Mr. Norris: I was relieved yesterday to hear on
the radio that the Leader has no intention whatsoever
of retiring from politics. I am sure the
Chair and the rest of the House will welcome her
announcement. Will she——
Mr. Ryan: Has Senator Norris decided to
continue?
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris on the Order
of Business.
Mr. Norris: I have not changed my mind at all
and will run in the next election.
Dr. Mansergh: In a reformed constituency.
Mr. Norris: I am sure my colleague, Senator
Mansergh, after he has spoken so manfully in
defence of the independence of Irish politicians,
will write a column about me in The Irish Times.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris on the Order
of Business.
Mr. Mansergh: Senator Norris will run in a
reformed constituency.
Mr. Norris: Yes. I will try to reform Senator
Mansergh’s constituency, which will be the end
of him.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris will speak on
the Order of Business.
Mr. Norris: The Leader promised a debate on
Iraq. It is a subject that is close to her heart and
I ask her to name the day. We do not have much
of significance to do this week. We could, therefore,
have the debate, particularly in light of the
fact that, while I noticed yesterday she indicated
she would put a motion on the Adjournment
about the manifests of certain aircraft passing
through our airspace, she did not have the opportunity
or time to set a date.
Ms O’Rourke: The debate will be held
tomorrow.
Mr. Norris: I am delighted. Well done. I would
not doubt the Leader.
Ms O’Rourke: In which case, what is the
Senator seeking?
Mr. Norris: It would be helpful——
Mr. Dardis: The Senator would be a brave man
if he did doubt the Leader.
Mr. Norris: Senator Norris, without
interruption.
Ms O’Rourke: The Senator is self-regulatory.
Mr. Norris: I am.
Mr. B. Hayes: His is a benign dictatorship.
Mr. Norris: To that end, after all the warnings
the House has given, this country has been
reported to the Security Council of the United
Nations.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator will address the
Chair and confine himself to the Order of
Business.
Mr. Norris: Certainly. I wish to refer to motion
No. 19 of No. 17, in my name and those of the
other Independent Members, on the Order
Paper. It is appropriate that the Seanad, which
had as one of its past Members the founder of
the Abbey Theatre, the late W. B. Yeats, should
request the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism
to give an account to the House of what is happening
regarding the theatre’s restructuring and
relocation. The Abbey Theatre is a national asset
[Mr. Norris.]
and it is not appropriate that businessmen,
however distinguished, should regard it as they
did in their previous attempt to filch it from its
historic site on Abbey Street as a “cultural key in
a commercial development”. It is a national asset
and should not pass into the commercial arena
without a debate in this House.
I support my colleague, Senator O’Toole, in his
call for a debate on the Kyoto Agreement. We
will not meet the targets set by the Kyoto protocol
and even if we did, all the protocol does is
slow down the rate of increase. It is rather sad
that we are not doing this. Many people this
morning may have heard the Minister for the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government,
Deputy Roche, give a not particularly distinguished
interview because he evaded every
question by engaging in flummery. This is not the
way to address the very serious problem of
climate change, which we have noted with the
Arctic ice cap melting. We are now supposed to
be at what is termed a tip-over point where the
world’s climate may never recover. I therefore
strongly support Senator O’Toole’s call for a
debate on the issue and on No. 17, motion No.
23, on the Order Paper.

Statements on the Salmon Fisheries Report - 25th October 2005

Statements on the Salmon Fisheries Report – 25th October 2005

Mr. Norris: A previous speaker from this side of the House was chastised for being partisan and political but I hope I will not. I hope what I have to say, which will be critical, will be seen to be founded on clear, scientific evidence and not as politically partisan. I have no reason to be partisan.
To give an example, I was extraordinarily impressed by the contribution of Senator Dardis. He spoke from the Government benches with clarity, the real passion of a committed fisherman and with honesty. That was most important. He made clear what he believed should be the solution. With regard to Senator Mansergh's contribution, one listens to people of a party political persuasion, sometimes with a degree of amusement, when they talk about the easy political choice and what is most popular with voters, as if political parties on one side of the House were immune from this. Of course, they are not. There is a political element in this debate and I accept that.
Senator Mansergh spoke about the rights of the fishermen but soon there will be no fish left anyway. That is the situation we face. The Minister said that the Government has accepted the scientific advice. That is too little, too late. According to Deputy Eamon Ryan, the Minister of State ignored scientific advice and issued a quota for 150,000 fish but only 100,000 were caught. There were insufficient numbers of fish. Salmon stocks are obviously reduced. According to The Irish Times, "Minister of State Pat the Cope Gallagher has ignored developmental and scientific advice and appears determined that nothing will halt the decline in salmon stocks...". It all comes down to ending drift netting. Of course, the fishermen must be compensated but there is no point pretending there will be a fishing industry if the practice is not ended. I will quote from another scientific paper: "The TAC [total allowable catch] approach has, however, been serious compromised by two factors: the consistent failure of the Minister of the day to follow scientific advice in setting TACs...." This is not against a particular party or Minister but against all of them. They have all been afraid to grasp this nettle.
On a personal basis I have a great fondness for the Minister and he is a decent man. However, he more or less admitted that he was massaging the situation a little. He told the House: "Senators will be aware that I have already given a firm commitment to aligning the exploitation of salmon with scientific advice by 2007..." One sees shades of St. Augustine, asking the Lord to make him chaste but not just yet because there is fun to be had in the meantime. The reference to 2007 is a clear indication that the Minister is not taking the scientific advice at present. He said as much in his speech by saying we will adhere to the scientific advice in 2007, two years hence. What will the situation be then? That is the problem.
There is another matter. I base my contribution on facts and the Minister is welcome to challenge them. According to the latest scientific advice the returns of spawning salmon in 2004 were below the levels required to meet their conservation limits in 14 of the 17 Irish fishery districts. Eight of the 14 districts were so far below their conservation limits that the scientific advice was that there was no exploitable surplus of salmon. In other words, there should have been no fishing in those areas. The source of this information is a paper entitled "Provisional Catch Advice for 2005 from the Standing Scientific Committee of the National Salmon Commission to the Commission", dated 30 November 2004.
I appreciate, as a practical politician, that there is a large scale drift net industry, particularly in the Donegal area. Let us be honest - that means there is political pressure. We should strengthen the Minister's hand in dealing with this political pressure by ensuring that all sides of the House recognise the crisis with fishing stocks. There is no question that there is a crisis. It is my understanding that most of the drift net fishermen recognise they are at the end of the line and will accept a compensation package.
The Minister also said that he will not make any money available until and unless it is proved to be in the common good. What planet are we on? It has been proved time and again that it is in the common good to give these people a dignified exit from a situation where they are destroying the industry for everybody, not just for the commercial trawlers. It also affects angling, which is worth €55 million to this country and has spin-off effects for hotels, cottage industries, ghillies, boatmen, the people who supply bait and so forth. There is a strong economic argument in that regard but it is being killed. The Minister is well aware that the angling magazines are warning people away from Ireland because of the disastrous situation. We must tackle this issue directly and immediately; putting it off is useless.
The Minister gave a party political speech in which he took on the spirit of the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, by saying, in effect, lots done, more to do.
He stated that throughout the last year the Government has done this, that and the other, but that he fully accepts that there is more to be done. First, he has not done half enough in the past and, second, he can start immediately in addressing the situation regarding fish stocks. Those are comments on the Minister of State's speech. They are not made in a personal or partisan sense, I would say so to any Minister of any party in Government because we are facing a real crisis.
One must look at the figures. Senator Mansergh stated that we do not really know and the scientific evidence is unclear. Not only is it not unclear, it is unanimous and totally unambiguous. If Senator Mansergh thinks it is the seals who are responsible for it, then I suggest he should do another doctorate in marine biology and marine science because we know that at least 70% of the salmon catch throughout the entire island comes from drift netting. That only leaves 30% to be distributed among everybody else, including the unfortunate seals who have been-----

Mr. Kenneally: That is not true.

Mr. Norris: These are the facts and figures.

Mr. Norris: Some 70% of the Irish salmon taken by all methods of exploitation, including recreational angling, fall to the drift nets. I have with me the catch returns in itemised form. On top of that-----

Mr. Kenneally: What is the catch for seals?

Mr. Gallagher: How many did the seals consume?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Norris without interruption.

Mr. Norris: This is the point. The Minister of State does not know, does he?

Mr. Gallagher: The Senator does not know.

Mr. Norris: I have a fairly good idea. Nothing justifies the slaughter of the seals, the way it was done against the law in Kerry. It is easy for the Minister to blame the seals for his inadequacy and finger a poor unfortunate dumb animal instead of doing what all the scientists state he should do. Over the period from 1970 to 2003, for example, the salmon catch has dropped to less than one quarter of its previous levels. That should set alarm bells ringing in even the dullest of minds and I am not suggesting for one second that the sharp person from Donegal has a dull mind. If there are some dull minds around, they need to be awoken.
The clear scientific indications are that in 59% of our rivers no salmon should be taken by any means whatever. That is what the scientists are saying. A further 27% should have severe reductions applied. This is what we are being told and this is where we need action.
If one looks at the question of growing salmon, many of the rivers that have a potential to produce juvenile salmon are on the south-east and east coasts. Here is a situation where they put drift nets right across the mouths of the rivers - it has been described to me as like having a drift net across the factory gates. The Minister of State is stopping production by allowing this method, which should be stopped.
I will give Senator Kenneally all the details and documents. I would have no difficulty in doing so. They are facts in black and white. We know it. There is no point in denying it. Why is the Minister of State in denial? We know it perfectly well. We know that bass have been affected. One must look at the position in the case of cod. Were we not all on the same side when the people in Newfoundland were fighting against the Spanish and Portuguese? Why is he singing a different tune now? We should be trying to protect what is left of our stocks. We also know that, for example, there should be proper openness and transparency in the case of our own fishermen and in terms of resources. I am sure the Minister of State could confirm - or perhaps he will express disbelief as well - that at weekends, and occasionally even in the evenings, there are no patrols. We have no regulations. I am delighted to hear that the salmon take the weekends off. That is another scientific fact from Fianna Fáil. That is great. Do they have bank holidays off as well?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator has one minute remaining.
Mr. Norris: That will be quite enough for me. There are other matters that should be addressed such as the lack of resources for monitoring this matter. I do not mean only monitoring our own people. If they are so innocent, why do they go without navigation lights when they are about this filthy, wasteful and profligate trade of monofilament and drift netting?
Let us look at the foreign fishermen. We all know what they do and I presume the Minister of State knows also, the way they leave their nets in the sea to save time when they are going back with their catch. They catch every conceivable kind of fish and then just dump them overboard. They then cut the nets while repairing them and leave them at the bottom of the sea where they can entangle all kinds of different fish, and there is no regulation. I can read it here, that the practice of repairing these nets at sea, cutting away and dumping overboard the miles of non bio-degradable netting retaining only the ropes, means many miles of netting ensnare fish uselessly, fish that are then dumped.
The Minister of State knows that my interest in this is not frivolous. I have been raising this matter over the past four or five years at least. No. 22, motion No. 13 on the Order Paper, in my name and supported by the other Independents, calls for what the Minister of State should address as a programme - a total ban, starting now, on mono and multi-monofilament gill and drift nets; a ban on trawling within a six mile limit; no netting of any description within one mile of the low water mark; the creation of and an increase in the protection for nursery and spawning areas; closed seasons to protect spawning fish; angling groups like the IFSA to be involved in consultation processes; a full survey of all recreational anglers to determine our economic input; an increase in minimum sizes and a reduction of quotas for commercially exploited species; increased fishery protection resources; much tighter oversight of domestic and foreign vessels as regards landings, gear, etc.; an end to the practices of marine dumping and aggregate extraction; and, an end to nuclear waste dumping. There are other issues, including the zebra mussels.
It really surprises me to hear the occasional voice - it is not yet even the majority voice in Fianna Fáil - chirruping up to protect the Spanish trawlers from my attacks. This is a national resource which we sold out during our negotiations with the European Union. At least let us protect that fragment which remains and nourish it back to some semblance of health.
I acknowledge the difficult position of the Minister of State. I encourage him to take a courageous stance. He should not keep postponing it. Otherwise he will be in an election in 2007. I ask him to act immediately. Why create this miasma about whether it is in the national good? The Minister of State knows it is in the national good. We all know it is in the national good to provide for decent fishermen so that we can continue with the salmon stocks.


__

Order of Business - 25th October 2005

Order of Business – 25th October 2005

Mr. Norris: I agree with many speakers with regard to the treatment of the late Mr. Lawlor. What has happened is not that we have departed from standards but that we have met the standards of the worst British tabloids. We have been going in that direction for years and I have referred to it in the past. However, politicians were reluctant to take up this issue because they did not want to confront the press. I remember the lickspittling from politicians when a series of meetings with newspaper editors were held in the Oireachtas. Now, perhaps, we have learned our lesson and are prepared to be a little tougher.
The Sunday Independent is a very mixed newspaper which contains some good articles. However, I always think of the character in The Pilgrim's Progress, Mr. Facing-Both-Ways, who always tried to have it both ways. On the front page of Sunday's edition of the newspaper, there was a rather sentimental, schmaltzy piece by Barry Egan in which he recounted how Liam Lawlor once loaned him an umbrella. In addition to keeping Mr. Egan dry, this act apparently covered a multitude of sins. At the end of the article Barry Egan wrote, "Perhaps those who savaged him when he was alive will be kinder to him now he's dead". This was just under the headline that misinformed people that Mr. Lawlor had been killed in a red light district in the company of a teenage prostitute. What about the rights of that woman, who I understand is 36 years of age? She has been traduced by this newspaper. Let us have a press council that some Members have been demanding for a long time. Let us have attitudes towards privacy expressed in law because people, irrespective of whether they are politicians, are entitled to be treated with decency in terms of their private lives.
Scandals give rise to much hypocrisy and discontent and strange people want to get in on the act. I heard one individual say that the newspapers should give €1 million to the Lawlor family. What rubbish. Liam Lawlor was not a saint and there is no reason to give anyone €1 million. There is, however, a need for decent attitudes.
Senator Quinn referred to the Easter Rising commemoration. I was appalled by the Taoiseach's remarks in Killarney on the resurrection of the military parade. This is treating the voters with contempt. It openly suggests going into competition with Sinn Féin. Now that it has got rid of its guns, Fianna Fáil will show it has bigger ones. This infantilism does no good. Let Fianna Fáil accentuate the positive aspects of its policy rather than running around attempting to mimic the bully boys of Sinn Féin. I remember 1966 and how unpleasant it was for people who were made to feel outside the box by the official republican-----

An Cathaoirleach: I think the Senator has adequately made his point.

Mr. Norris: It is blasphemous to have the event on Easter Sunday, which is about the resurrection of Jesus Christ and not the insurrection of Padraig Pearse.

An Cathaoirleach: I call Senator Ó Murchú.

Mr. Norris: We should also remember how this will be perceived in Northern Ireland.

Presentation by Senator David Norris to the Joint Foreign Affairs' Sub-Committee on Human Rights - 20th October 2005

Sub-Committee on Human Rights of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Human Rights: Presentation.

20th October 2005
I welcome Senator David Norris to today's meeting. Senator Norris recently sent correspondence to the sub-committee, which was circulated to members, along with an answer to a parliamentary question tabled by Deputy John Gormley. The substance of Senator Norris's concern and query relates to the recent execution of two young men in Iran and he asked that he be allowed to make a presentation on the matter to the sub-committee this morning.

Senator Norris: I greatly appreciate this opportunity to speak on behalf of Ayaz Marhoni, who was 18 years old at the time of his execution, and Mahmoud Azgari, who was aged 17 when he was executed. They had been in prison for approximately two years and were arrested for engaging in consensual sexual activity. Apparently, they admitted this but said that it happened on a regular basis among teenagers, which is generally true, and that they were unaware of the fact that it was against Islamic law.
They were held for 14 months, repeatedly beaten and tortured, condemned by a sharia court, flogged 228 times and hung from the back of a lorry. There are appalling colour photographs on the Internet depicting the interrogation of these terrified youths and the masked executioners placing nooses around their necks and then stringing them up. It was an unutterably barbaric and filthy act that should be roundly condemned.
I was not aware of the young men's execution but was contacted by a number of people who had seen reports in the Irish Examiner and other newspapers. These people, who are not gay, appealed to me raise this matter because they were so horrified by what they had seen. I contacted the Iranian ambassador to Ireland and eventually received a very vague reply from him. The reply suggested that the young men were convicted of raping a 13 year old boy at knifepoint, which is an outright lie. The initial reports from the Iranian news agencies do not refer to this alleged rape.
People have been routinely killed in this manner on foot of this accusation in the past. At least 4,000 young gay people have been murdered in this fashion under sharia law and 100,000 Iranians have been publicly executed since the Ayatollahs took power. I raised this issue with former President Hashemi Rafsanjani and the former Foreign Minister, Dr. Ali Akbar Vilayati, a number of years ago when I was in Iran and I quoted from the Koran during the meeting. There is no endorsement for this practice in the Koran, which contains only two references to homosexual activity. The references, which I think are found in shuras 25 and 26, merely express the Prophet Mohammed's astonishment at people finding sexual satisfaction with persons of their own sex and do not appoint a penalty. The sharia courts presume to do and execute girls over nine years of age. Only boys aged 15 and over can be executed so sex discrimination exists in this area.
Two young teenagers, who were aged 16 they were arrested, were taken into custody, beaten, tortured, humiliated and then taken to a public square where they were flogged 228 times and then hung from the back of a lorry for having consensual sex. Due to the resulting furore, the Iranian Government then changed the story but I do not believe the new version of it.
I am aware that time is limited so I ask that the Iranian ambassador to Ireland be invited to come before this sub-committee and that a report be prepared from all available sources, including groups such as Amnesty International and OutRage!, so that questions can be publicly put to the ambassador. I ask that I be allowed to attend this meeting because it is intolerable that in the 21st century, two young people should have their lives snuffed out in this ignorant and blasphemous fashion simply because they engaged in consensual sex.
Iranian officials are extremely stubborn and the European Union is making a considerable mistake by merely engaging dialogue with Iran and not condemning it in international fora. I was haunted when I saw the faces of these decent, fine-looking young men and imagined what their feelings were. It is one thing to die as a martyr for a cause or a hero. People can protect themselves from the horrible implications of an imminent death if they feel they are dying for a cause. These two young men were teenagers, who are routinely agonised and confused about sexual identity and the question of their sexual existence. It is a barbarous, filthy and unforgivable crime against humanity to arrest, torture, imprison for nearly two years and publicly humiliate two teenagers and finally hang them from a crane on the back of a lorry, thereby exposing them to contempt at the moment of their death. We should not forget these two people, particularly because the Iranian Government has a track record of similar activity.
I remember raising the issue of two women in a university in southern Iran who were accused of being lesbians. They were taken to a public square and split down the middle with an axe by an executioner. I sought to raise this issue with a visiting Iranian delegation. The session was to have been held in public but unfortunately it was the day on which the late Brian Lenihan died and the meeting was transferred to the Dáil in open session. I regret to tell the sub-committee that all the Iranian parliamentarians totally justified what happened to these two women. At that point, there was no suggestion of rape or anything like it. They received a mild degree of encouragement from some of my colleagues, to their eternal shame. I wish the Irish people had seen the brutal and barbaric stance of those members of the Iranian Parliament who justified this attack on the two women.
As we speak, three terrified teenage boys in Iran are being hunted and may meet the same fate. It is unacceptable and I ask that we take the action I have suggested. We should ask the ambassador to address the committee. Originally, my feelings were so engaged, I wrote a letter that would have scalded the envelope but thought it would be much better to seek information rather than prejudice the case from the beginning. I then wrote a letter seeking information. However, the information I received was paltry and unsatisfactory. I asked for further information but have received none whatsoever. Their officials stated that whatever sentence is decreed by an Islamic penal system must be approved, that instead of paying tribute to the actions of the judiciary, the media are mentioning the age of the hanged criminals and creating a commotion that harms the interests of the state and that they object to this
It is important to state we are against capital punishment. The hanging and torture of children for consensual sexual behaviour is certainly an outrage. We are betraying humanity if we do not register the strongest possible objection with and interrogate the ambassador regarding the charges, ages, conditions in captivity, how the court functions and so on. On behalf of these two lovely young men who were arrested at the age of 16 and publicly humiliated and hanged at the age of 18, I appeal to the committee to do something in their memory and for the victims who are now in the pipeline and will certainly be butchered by these savages if we do not utter the strongest possible protest.

Order of Business - 20th October 2005

Order of Business – 20th October 2005
Mr. Norris: I deplore the return to the neurotic obsession of certain sections of Fianna Fáil with RTE. In the old days it was said it was full of communists and stickies and now it is said they are all capitalists. We would be foolish to undermine our national broadcaster.
Mr. B. Hayes: Hear, hear.
Mr. Norris: It is perfectly reasonable from time to time for there to be criticism of it, but we should not destroy public service broadcasting here, as has happened in other countries. We need only look next door to Britain and the way the Government there tried to undermine the BBC. We should not let that happen here. We get a very good service from the national broadcaster. When we want to highlight issues, such as the referendum on Europe, we rely on RTE. If we did not have it and only had the commercial stations, we would never get a message across. We also need to generate employment in our own local programming, script writing and acting. We should not weaken what is a great national institution simply because of some momentary irritation. That would be fatal.
Mr. Leyden: The Senator has his own show on it.
Mr. Norris: No, but the Senator practically has. He is on it every bloody night. I do not know what he is squawking about, he is just looking for another headline.
A meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges is scheduled. Will the Deputy Leader confirm that the question I have repeatedly raised - and in respect of which I would say that there is support across this House, although for obvious reasons everybody cannot be upfront about it - about extending the time allocated for the Order of Business will be raised?
Mr. Coghlan: Hear, hear.
Mr. Norris: It is the most vital element of our business, the one that is covered by the media and the one in which people are most interested. Why do we not go with the flow, as they say, and accept the reality, instead of impotently trying to curtail it? We say that a half an hour is allocated for it but I suggest the time allocated should be extended to 45 minutes or an hour. Every sitting day the Order of Business continues for 45 minutes and that includes the introduction.
Mr. Dardis: That is 45 minutes that the Senator wants for himself.
Mr. Norris: Let us be realistic and honest about this. Can the Leas-Chathaoirleach me a guarantee that this matter will be on the-----
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: That is an issue the Senator can take up with the leader of his group.
Mr. Norris: We do not have a leader. We appear to have a new leader in Senator Coonan; that is one up for us. Can we have an extra chair?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator has a representative on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges with whom he can raise this matter. I believe it is Senator O'Toole.
Mr. Norris: My representative will raise it. It is a matter that would add to the strength and visibility of the business of the House.
With regard to road safety, I agree with Senator Ryan. We should have a review of it but it is unnecessary to have a debate on the issue four times a year because the Joint Committee on Transport can examine the matter.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Has the Senator another point to make?
Mr. Norris: Yes, I am speaking about the debate that has been called for by Senator Ryan. I support it but it is unnecessary to debate the issue four times a year. I have just come from the Joint Committee on Transport which was dealing with the issue of safety. Mr. Shaw appeared before it. There are serious issues that need to be addressed in this area that are not always addressed on the Order of Business. We have had several recent tragedies. People start talking about heavy goods vehicles in this context but they have nothing to do with these situations. There is a recurring situation that we need to address. It is that of young people in the early hours of a Sunday morning, perhaps intoxicated with drink or drugs, driving high powered cars possibly on roads that are in a bad state of repair-----
Mr. Dardis: The Senator is debating the issue.
Mr. Norris: -----on their way home from a nightclub.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is the Senator seeking a debate on this issue?
Mr. Norris: I am supporting Senator Ryan's request for one.
I had intended to seek a debate on Iraq but at the moment this is not a good idea because we have a muddied situation that needs to be explored. I cannot say that I extend sympathy to Mr. Carroll, for whom I have high respect as I do for his father, because one hopes and believes that because he appears to have been taken by the militia of Moqtada al-Sadr he has a good chance of surviving and coming back home. I very much hope this happens. However, it is tragic and ironic that he should be taken on the anniversary of the kidnapping of Margaret Hassan who was a noble, decent and good woman, as Mr. Carroll is a decent, good and efficient reporter. I wish for his safety.

The Order of Business - 19th October 2005

The Order of Business – 19th October 2005

Mr. Norris: I raised the question of the redress board when the issue of fees first became public knowledge a week or two ago. I listened with interest to the spokesperson of the Law Society. He was very disingenuous as he gave the impression that this is a rare occurrence and is limited to a few cases involving the board. That is not the situation. The principle exists throughout the legal profession and I will give one example. Legal firms frequently draw a distinction between what they call solicitor and client costs on the one hand and court-awarded costs. They abstract the difference. This means the legal firms second-guess what the court believes is the appropriate fee to be paid and they charge their individual clients a greater amount. This is endemic throughout the legal profession and needs to be examined.
I ask for a debate as soon as possible, within the next week, on the proposed metro for Dublin. The Leader played a very significant role in this area, both as Minister for Public Enterprise and in facilitating debate. I understand that a major investment programme in transport infrastructure will be announced in the next week or two. It is very important for us to debate it now and give the matter a very vigorous push to ensure that at least the initial phase of investment in the only system that will really address the traffic issue in Dublin is implemented.
I ask the Leader to ascertain from the relevant Minister why we have not ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. I attended a Law Society conference on Saturday at which the United Nations chairperson of the committee dealing with the issue, Prasad Kariyawasam, said it was extraordinary that of all the states that had promoted the convention, none of the labour receiving states, including Ireland, which supported it, has signed or ratified it. We are entitled to an answer as to why the convention has not been ratified. I have tried to raise a matter many times in the House, namely the appalling decision by An Bord Pleanála to grant retention to a sawmill development at Leap Castle. Every time I tried to raise this matter I was stymied because I was informed the case was sub judice and this, that and the other. A landmark decision has been given by An Bord Pleanála which undermines the whole credibility of the planning process. Just like the northside planning permissions, it is a case of doing what one wants, using one's influence, pleading an employment factor and breaking the guarantees given under the terms of the Environmental Protection Agency. Dangerous substances such as chromium 6 are used, the air is polluted, extensive visual damage is created and the reward is this decision by An Bord Pleanála.

Mr. Norris: I ask for a debate on the planning system. I refer to the last sentence from the statement by An Taisce. I am aware that An Taisce is not universally popular in this House-----

(Interruptions).

Mr. Norris: I am very proud to be a member of An Taisce. Every Member of this House should be a member-----

Ms White: I too am a member.

Mr. Norris: -----and they would be able to influence the direction it takes because that is the way democracy works.
An Taisce stated that the unauthorised Standish development was seen as a national test case of the credibility of the Irish planning system. An Bord Pleanála has sent out the worst possible national signal that unauthorised development will be rewarded in the end.

Order of Business - 13th October 2005

Order of Business – 13th October 2005

Mr. Norris: We are due another debate on
Northern Ireland in light of the defence of Fr.
Alec Reid by Senator McCarthy. I respect Fr.
Reid, as he has done honourable, good and historic
work. However, it was not acceptable for
him to say what he did, which I heard clearly. He
said the Unionist community behaves like Nazis.
This is not correct and many members of that
community will be offended because their relatives
died fighting fascism in Europe while the
IRA collaborated as much as it could with the
Nazis. One recalls the tale of Mr. Sea´n Russell,
the IRA’s chief of staff, returning to Ireland in a
German submarine.
It would be dangerous to travel down these
roads and we must bear in mind the notion of
parity of esteem. People should be very ashamed
of some acts, such as the Shankill butchers.
However, a good point made was that the Protestant
community has never supported these butchers.
They never get anywhere politically and
are wiped out electorally whereas Sinn Fe´ in, the
political representative of the provisional IRA, is
now the principal Nationalist party in the North.
We should put these elements in context. While
I honour Fr. Reid’s work, his comments were
regrettable. I, like everyone else, have put my
foot in it several times.
Mr. Minihan: More than most.
Mr. Norris: Fr. Reid graciously withdrew those
comments. The President and now Fr. Reid have
[Mr. Norris.]
made such comments; this type of inflated language
should stop.
Will the Acting Leader determine the exact
status of the Health and Social Care Professionals
Bill 2004, which I understand has not been
enacted? Would it be possible to amend the Bill
to include chiropractors in its provisions, as they
meet the five criteria listed? The public is unprotected
as people who are not qualified despite
universal qualifications existing throughout
Europe can establish themselves as chiropractors
and do serious damage.
Will the Acting Leader arrange a debate on the
people involved in the Shot at Dawn Campaign?
A total of 26 young Irish soldiers who volunteered
during the First World War were shot at
dawn for rebellion or insubordination simply for
not wearing filthy, wet hats in the trenches while
they were suffering from shell shock. New
Zealand has publicly exonerated its six soldiers
treated in this way and awarded the medals their
sacrifices deserve. Is the Government pressing
this matter?

Statements on Domestic Violence - 13th October 2005

Statements on Domestic Violence – 13th October 2005
Mr. Norris: I am moved by the sensitive approach taken by Senator Kett in his excellent contribution. I always find non-confrontational debates of this kind very useful because they provide the Seanad with an opportunity to play a positive role and it is good the House discusses these matters. I was reminded the other evening that it was only 25 or 30 years ago that women Senators, for instance, the then Senators Mary Robinson and Gemma Hussey, tried to raise issues such as violence against women, contraception, the law on criminal conversation, which allowed a cuckolded husband to sue his wife's sexual partner for the value of her sexual services which had been distrained from him. These and other issues, including rape within marriage, were first raised in the House by a series of courageous, forward-looking women who were roundly trounced from all sides for having the temerity so to do.
At roughly the same time, organisations such as Women's Aid became involved in the issue. I salute the presence of a number of distinguished representatives of these organisations in the Visitors Gallery. I recall doing a James Joyce one-man show to raise money for the women's refuge in Rathmines around ten or 15 years ago. This was one of the first concrete examples of a building being constructed to house women who had been victims of violence.
I was interested to read in one of the briefing documents I received about the immense impact of Roddy Doyle's television series, "The Family", shown on RTE in 1994. This general artistic theatrical presentation resulted in an immediate and enormous increase in the numbers of calls received by organisations working in this area. I salute Roddy Doyle, an author sometimes dismissed rather too easily, not only for the programme but also for an immensely moving book, The Woman who Walked into Doors. The interesting title tells it all.
That was immensely moving because it looked at the syndrome, mentioned by Senator Kett, of women who wait until the 35th attack and justify it, make excuses and pretend it did not happen or their injuries were the result of an accident.
We last looked at this issue in January 2004 and it is important that we continue to monitor it. I am glad to see that there have been a number of advances since we last debated it and I compliment the Department on this. Civil legal aid has been given increased resources. Waiting times have been reduced to four months. This is not ideal. A situation where one feels one's welfare is in danger is a critical and urgent one. Even though it may be an improvement, a waiting time of four months is simply too long. There is no doubt that in the case of domestic violence, in particular, justice delayed is justice denied.
The in camera rule has been amended and women now can be accompanied to court by a third party in support of them. One aspect I appreciate very much about the work of Women's Aid, in particular, is that it engages in one-to-one interaction. In these circumstances that sort of humane approach is important.
However, the situation is not entirely rosy, as the Minister of State knows because he has responded to it during the week and also in a glancing reference today. There is further support needed from central resources because of the frequency with which the telephone service, for example, is used. The freefone helpline is open every day, except Christmas Day, from 10 o'clock in the morning until 10 o'clock at night. In 2004, 19,901 calls were made to the service, an increase of 5% on the previous year. Women's Aid responded to 12,147 calls. That leaves some 7,700 missed calls because Women's Aid did not have sufficient resources of personnel, offices, machines, etc. Those 7,700 missed calls are the ones which should worry all of us because there should not be any missed calls.
If people are in situations where they are being subjected to violence, they are desperate if their calls are missed. It is our responsibility to support those agencies to make sure they are not missed. There were 30% more missed calls last year. The Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, who has done good work in this area indicated, according to newspapers, that he also was concerned about this and that he understood from Women's Aid that a sum of €70,000 might resolve the situation. That is a tiny amount of money. If that would mean that next year 7,000 calls were taken rather than missed and 7,000 people in misery were given some support, that would be the best spent €70,000 imaginable. I hope this comes about, although I noted that the Minister of State in his speech spoke of the need to increase the amount. We must salute and acknowledge the fact that, historically, it has been increased. This is an issue which should be looked at.
There is also the question of the origin and nature of the calls. It is worrying that so many of the cases of violence are generated domestically. We can tell this from the figures. Another aspect of Women's Aid I like is that it does not collect statistics because it is interested in the human dimension. When the telephone call is made Women's Aid wants to support that other human being and the gathering of statistics is only incidental. It would be inappropriate in a cold-hearted way to ask a caller's age, marital status, etc. People want support and they get it. Women's Aid is quite good at getting statistics of various kinds, however, not just the number of calls received but a profile of the perpetrators of the abuse, which needs to be addressed.
It is shameful that over half of the abuse disclosed was perpetrated by the current partner of the woman. Marriage remains the most common context for domestic violence among the calls to the service, with 38% of women disclosing it was their husband. That is a chilling statistic. While there are many decent husbands and many good families, it means we must look with a critical eye at the reality within so many families. A further 13% of these acts were perpetrated by either a male partner or a male co-habitee. We all know of situations - often we see them on television and read about them - where not just a husband or a partner, but occasionally a male who has had the relationship terminated will not allow a woman say, "I am sorry, we made a mistake. I am bringing this relationship to an end.". She may then be met with murder because she is not considered to be allowed this freedom. That is very worrying.
We also need to look at broadening the range of services because so many of the calls come from Dublin and it is a Dublin centred organisation. We should ensure that this service is spread throughout the country as far as possible. I take it the Minister of State has received Women's Aid briefing documents containing all the points on the budget and changes in legislation which it requires to be made.
It is regrettable that groups like Amnesty International, which have taken this matter on board seriously, and Women's Aid should be attacked regularly by certain columnists in principal national newspapers.

Mr. McCarthy: Hear, hear.

Mr. Norris: The attacks are unbalanced and unworthy. One must put them in the context where they challenge whether this is a gender-based issue. The United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women states:
...violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which have led to domination over and discrimination against women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women, and that violence against women is one of the most crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men,...
That is a world view and is not adequately challenged by people who are against it.
Aspects such as the rights of co-habitees must be looked at. If I had more time, I would draw the parallels with violence against the gay community. Having said all that, we must not close our eyes to the fact that there are circumstances in which men are subject to violence and while the violence is predominately against women, we should ensure that no citizen is badly treated.
There is an automatic assumption that if a woman engages in violence against a man, it is his fault and he is responsible. There was a notorious case in the courts in Dublin recently where an unfortunate man was stabbed 21 times, hit 26 times with a hammer and flattened to death. There was a record of violence by his wife against him which was not presented to the jury and she got off with manslaughter. We need to accept that there are a minority of cases where, within marriage or relationships, men can be subject to violence and we are not doing any justice to the cause by ignoring that. No doubt it is essentially a gender based issue and our arguments will not be reduced or diminished by accepting what may be, in a small minority of cases, the reality.

Statements on the European Union - 13th October 2005

Statements on the European Union – 13th October 2005
Mr. Norris: I welcome the Taoiseach and the fact that I have just received in my pigeon hole the White Paper on the European Constitution, which will be very valuable and useful. It has arrived at a time when the European Union has formed a new plan D, which it calls "Dialogue, Democracy and Debate".
I am not sure I share entirely the Taoiseach's optimism regarding all the newly acceded states sharing the fundamental values of Europe. In this regard, consider in particular the countries that were in the former Soviet system. Poland has experienced a dramatic lurch to the right and some of the leaders of the countries in question have taken extremely regrettable positions on human and civil rights. In light of the great increase, by ten countries, in the size of the Union, I am not sure we can say with confidence that all of them share our views on fundamental human rights.
I know my distinguished colleague, Senator Ormonde, said the directives from the European Union will be sent here for ratification by Parliament. The Taoiseach and I both know, because we are cynical old birds, that this is just a rubber stamp. So much material is generated by Europe that it is impossible for us to monitor it accurately. When the regulations concerning copyright were being produced, I spotted the problems that would arise regarding the Joyce estate and asked to be told when the regulations were due to be introduced. However, they went through on the nod and nobody raised a peep; therefore we should be careful about assuming we have a certain kind of regulatory influence.
I am also worried about the biometric passports issue because of the undemocratic way in which it was rushed through. The procedures were rather odd. The European Council pressed the European Parliament to accept the relevant report despite the fact that it had been changed. The question of facial identification was in the initial report and that of fingerprints was not. At least fingerprinting was considered an option. In the second report, fingerprinting was mandatory. Normally when there is this much change in such material, there is a requirement to pass it again, but this was not done. The Council blackmailed the European Parliament by saying it would not pass instruments regarding immigration and asylum issues, in which it the European Parliament was interested, if it did not play ball. We should consider the legal analysis by people such as Professor Steve Peers, who questions the legal basis. I will not elaborate on it at this point. I am worried about the use of biometric identification for monitoring innocent, decent citizens and the impact of Eurodac on the asylum-seeking population.
I support Senator Quinn's remarks. It is very interesting that a major business person, with a very extensive interest in supermarkets and food, should take such a decent and idealistic position on the question of the Common Agricultural Policy and its effect on third countries. I noticed that the article the Taoiseach wrote in the Financial Times was picked up on because of some of the statistics contained therein, which I am sure the Taoiseach did not generate. These statistics could be challenged on the basis of the supports for agricultural producers both in the United States and Europe. They should be examined in both these regions. We must get the facts absolutely accurate or our position will be exposed. I thank the Taoiseach very much for coming to the House.

Motion on Tax Evasion - 5th October 2005

Motion on Tax Evasion – 5th October 2005

Mr. Norris: I welcome the Minister to the
House. I found his speech very interesting but
before I turn to it I would like to say that I may
support the Government’s amendment. Although
the Labour Party has made very serious points, it
has gone in the direction of a particular ethos
rather than any particular party. I do not know of
any Government under which there has been the
kind of aggressive attack upon private tax
defaulters that the Labour party seems to think is
deficient and a deficiency of this Government. I
do not wish to be part of this on this occasion.
The Government is fairly strong in going in the
right direction and in the direction that the
Labour party seems to wish for.
The Minister said there is no policy to protect
the well-off from the rigours of the law. There
may not be a policy but that is certainly the effect.
Nobody could be in any doubt about this. Wealthy
people are protected both in the courts and
in terms of their tax provisions and the banks.
The bigger the crook, the bigger the write-off he
or she will get. A small person gets squashed and
trampled. We all know this is true; there is no
argument about it. There could be no argument
from either side of the House. I disagree with the
Labour Party in that I do not think this is a spec
ific policy of this Government. I believe the
responsibility lies elsewhere, perhaps in the past.
The history of the Revenue Commissioners may
play a part in it. I do not want to see people
hounded into prison, particularly people on relatively
low incomes. The Revenue Commissioners
is a beast that is feared in many quarters but also
treated with disrespect by others.
I do not believe there is a policy to protect
these people but it is a fact and part of our ethos.
I remember when tax evasion was not regarded
as a sin in the Catholic Church. A person who
had evaded income tax did not have to confess it.
I have some nationalist friends who are delighted
to boast to me about the amounts they defrauded
from the Revenue Commissioners. There was no
feeling of civic responsibility in this country and
we must understand this. We are now at a path
where something needs to be done about it. A
friend who is a senior and well-advised political
commentator said to me very recently that he felt
that there should be what he described as “stench
marking” in addition to benchmarking because of
the awful aroma of corruption that floats around
so much of our life in this country. We are sliding
down internationally on the corruption index,
which is most regrettable. All of us should stand
together to try to do something about this.
The tribunals, of which we have had approximately
12, are a good indicator. So far, these tribunals
have cost \200 million and that is before
third party costs are paid. The total cost will probably
be \1 billion. This is the extent of what is
going on in this country. The Exchequer seems to
be awash with money and everyone is trying to
get their fingers into it in one way or another. I
have before me an economic report which looks
at the report of the Comptroller and Auditor
General. The Comptroller and Auditor General
talks about the West Link bridge where \2 million
disappeared and nobody seemed to bother
about it. There is information in the report about
the computer system in the Department of
Health and Children and how the Prison Service
abandoned a \500,000 computer service because
it did not like the way it operated. I heard some
time ago on the radio about a situation where a
road service was faulty and had to be redone. A
steamroller had to be brought in and the entire
cost of re-tarmacking that section of road was
\50,000. However, the authorities were billed \3
million and they paid up. This is the kind of ethos
that we have and should address.
The report I have is very interesting because it
is not partisan and does not come from any particular
political party. It is a kind of business
report. It says, “there is a stark contrast in the
way the State pursues social welfare fraud, compared
with tax fraud”. I am not saying it is
Government policy but it is a fact and is noticed
by the business community independently. The
amounts are also quite disproportionate. I have
before me a table of prosecutions from the
Department of Social and Family Affairs. Table
53 deals with criminal cases forwarded to the
Chief State Solicitor and lists them under the
headings of unemployment assistance, unemployment
benefit, disability benefit, one parent family
payment, other schemes, offences committed by
employers and so on. In 2004, there were 476 and
there were 355 in 2003. The amounts involved
were \1,116,492. In other words, the amount was
just over \1 million and there was a marginal rise
from the previous year. If one looks at the other
aspect of this, the special investigations, the
money which was deliberately and systematically
defrauded by big interests and big private investors
is \2 billion and nobody has gone, or will go,
to prison. By contrast, the small people, those at
the margins of society, have been prosecuted and
36 of them have been sent to prison.
Irish Times, referred to a series of frauds in the
construction industry which is close to some of
the political parties here. He wrote “The brazenness
can be breathtaking.” Indeed it can. Four
building sub-contractors were involved in claiming
tax relief funds for jobs that were never
undertaken. They never paid the tax, the jobs did
not exist but they received the tax relief funds. In
his article Fintan O’Toole states:
[They] faked tax refund claim forms pleaded
guilty to deception and theft during 2003. They
submitted forms to the Revenue claiming
refunds on the 35% which main contractors
must automatically deduct from payments to
subcontractors. But the jobs they were claiming
for did not exist and when the offenders
received the refund cheques, they simply
passed them on to the builders who organised
the fraud, keeping a small cut for themselves.
The situation of what is termed “pick-me-up”
schemes is interesting. This involves party supporters
outside the political arena who pick up

expenses legitimately owed by the political parties.
It is illegal but there have been 71 cases of
this practice. That comes very close to home in
this House.
Fintan O’Toole, in an excellent article in The
I understand this is called “trousering the
proceeds”.
If one looks around there is no doubt that the
Labour Party is right in what it says in this sense:
the small people are crushed, the big crooks get
away with it. That is part of our ethos. I am not
inclined to blame Fianna Fa´ il or the coalition
Government for this. However, Senator
Mansergh with his eloquent interruptions has
persuaded me that it would be wrong for me
tonight to vote with the Government. In tribute
to his wisdom, I shall be happy to vote for the
Labour Party motion.

Statements on Early Childhood Education - 5th October 2005

Statements on Early Childhood Education – 5th October 2005

Mr. Norris: I compliment Senator White on the
work she has done. I do not have a problem with
means testing so long as the bar is set high
enough. A lady spoke on the radio today who
has two autistic children. When her husband got
promotion all her supports were taken away. She
argued her case. Eventually her supports were
reduced from \180 to \36. That is not support.
The point made on the Government side that we
are no longer quite as family supportive as a
country as we think is well made.
I wish to refer to the OECD report. It makes
the point that early childhood education is a vital
foundation in terms of physical development,
brain growth, motor skills, language, intelligence,
personality formation and so on. This is the key
point. It also makes another significant point that
the section of society that benefits most from this
intervention is the poorest. Yet that is the area of
least take up because of less support and less
assistance.
The female drop out rate from the employment
system after the birth of a first or second child is
high. A point was made earlier about the unaffordability
for many of the creche in Leinster
House. The OECD report points out that typically,
a second earner in a couple family with two
young children in care with earnings of two-thirds
of average salary has no net return from work
after child care costs. That is mad. It shows
Senator White is correct when she says we have
to do something really imaginative. We have also
an unfortunate situation in Ireland where we
have the ambition of giving women the choice of
going out into the work place. The ideal is to have
the two parents in the home. My father died when
I was six. My mother brought me up and did a
pretty good job. Certainly my childhood was
enjoyable. It was difficult for her. The ideal is that
two parents would bring up the child equally but
that is not the real world.
In Ireland only 45% of lone mothers are in
employment whereas the rate is 81% in Austria,
76% in France and 84% in Japan. Here again we
are at the bottom of the table. The Cathaoirleach
has indicated I do not have much time. The
OECD report includes in this the Barcelona
objectives and spells them out clearly and how
they should be reached and what needs to be
done. It is along the lines of what Senator White
has suggested. The section of society who would
benefit most are the poorest and most vulnerable.
Mr. Norris: That is the group that is getting
least. It is up to the Minister of State and his colleagues
to redress the position.

Statements on Northern Ireland - 6th October 2005

Statements on Northern Ireland – 6th October 2005

Mr. Norris: I welcome the Taoiseach to the
House. It is always good to hear his balanced
reports on progress. There has been progress and
quite a large proportion is due to the Taoiseach’s
dogged determination to pursue the course of
peace in Northern Ireland in very difficult days.
We have had decommissioning, which was a
major and spectacular event. I was out of the
country at the time but the story was all over the
international media. It puts us in a position where
we can hold our heads up with a certain amount
of respect. We had to wait a long time for it but
at least it was done without a major IRA split,
which is very significant and important.
It is tragic that each generation seems to have
to learn that the use of force is futile. Even when
I was a child in school, we learned that the application
of force creates an equal and opposite
force. Both sides eventually realised that they
could not win militarily. I am glad that they did
but at such a cost. This lesson has not yet been
fully learned by the governments on the neighbouring
island and in the United States of America
with their adventure in Iraq. I wish to God
that they would learn it soon.
I welcome the fact that the Taoiseach is considering
the questions of representation and
speaking rights. He has excluded the Dail, which
only leaves this House, so I presume there will be
some move here. We have an honourable tradition
in this regard in the House, exemplified at
present by Senator Maurice Hayes. I also pay
tribute to other people who have not been mentioned.
One of them is Seamus Mallon, with
whom I disagreed on so many of what were called
“moral issues”. However, he is a man of the
utmost integrity, as was the late Gerry Fitt.
There has been movement on the Unionist
side. I was very pleased to see the Reverend Ian
Paisley going into a Roman Catholic school,
meeting with the children and condemning the
barbarous notion of the desecration of graves. As
a member of the Church of Ireland, I absolutely
condemn this kind of behaviour. It is barbarism
of the worst sort. Decent people, whatever their
disagreements, respect the tribal dead of each
side.
We all know there are still problems with Sinn
Fein and the IRA. It is not just the news coming
from Manchester; it is much closer to home.
There are lists of pubs around Dublin that everybody
believes have been secured with hot money
from the IRA. When I watched “Questions and
Answers” approximately six weeks ago, I saw a
Sinn Fein representative from the other House.
Perhaps I should not name him but I am sure the
Taoiseach knows who it is. His initials are “M.
F.”. He was asked about fund raising and the way
Sinn Fein bankrolled all its elections. An individual
mentioned bank raids and the Sinn Fein representative
calmly replied that this was what he
termed “armed fund raising”. This suggests that
Sinn Fein is a party that is only mildly tainted
by constitutionality.

Order of Business - 6th October 2005

Order of Business – 6th October 2005

Mr. Norris: I ask the Leader if we could have
a debate on Iraq. We have a tradition of looking
at the situation in that country and current developments
there are very worrying. Last week,
American forces decided to enter the city of Haditha
in military form and attacked two cars containing
families fleeing. Ten people were killed,
including three children. Very little is done about
keeping this under review. The British army also
got itself into a very difficult situation in Basra
with two undercover SAS agents who were disguised
as Arab mercenaries and carried guns and
ammunition. I asked what the Colombia Three
were doing in Colombia and I ask the same question
on the same principle about the British army
in this case. What were these agents doing? This
question was neglected by the British media.
We should examine the question of asylum seekers.
A report in Metro magazine told the story
of a young Nigerian man who came to this country
five years ago. He applied for asylum and was
turned down. He then applied on humanitarian
grounds and was again turned down. He was
served a deportation order and committed
suicide, leaving a partner and a small child, whose
fate is also uncertain. We are told that these
people are not serious and that their stories are
cock-and-bull. The situation was serious enough
for the man in question to prefer to take his own
life rather than be returned to Nigeria.
I support Senator Morrissey’s call for a debate
on the transport system in Dublin. It would be an
opportunity for us to vigorously reintroduce, as
this House did very effectively with support from
all quarters, the notion of the only sensible solution
— a metro.

Order of Business - 11th October 2005

Order of Business – 11th October 2005

Mr. Norris: I shall try to observe the Cathaoirleach's ruling about being as brief as possible. However, many people will agree that this is the most interesting and exciting time of the day. It is the period that is covered most in the media. We should respond to the realities by being flexible and invite as many Members as possible to contribute to this very important part of the day.
I support colleagues in calling for a debate on the situation as regards salmon. I am sure our distinguished friends from Canada will sympathise with us,. I recall what happened some years ago when the great cod banks were being fished out and when the Canadian trawlermen stood up powerfully against the Spanish invaders. Much of that initiative was held to be illegal. I was one of the few here who said that while it might be illegal, they were perfectly right. We have the same situation here because we have drifted. Governments have drifted and allowed this to happen. Senator Ross and I have tabled a motion in support of our colleagues. We have pursued this matter during the past five or six years. The motion in our names is very detailed and does not limit itself just to the issue of driftnets. However, I warmly salute the work done by Senator Dardis. The PDs have played a very important role politically. During the week, one their Members in the Lower House indicated that she would vote against the Government on this issue. That type of pressure had a salutary effect.

Mr. Norris: I am also seeking a debate on the rolling scandal involving computer technology in various Departments. I was speaking at a dinner last night. One of our really excellent entrepreneurs and businessmen who operates in this area discussed the matter with me. I was left wondering why we did not have a trade mission to this country to sell our own computer expertise. Why do we go to big foreign conglomerates? We have a reputation for being at the front end of research and design in this area, along with numerous other small countries. Why do we not source this type of material here? They would be far less likely to make a bags of it. Big companies, on the other hand, are responsible for damage to a major pharmaceutical concern in the US. They have done the same to the British health service. Then they come to us. A local company, however, would be afraid to move from an estimate of €9 million to one of €400 million. Will the Leader request from the various Departments figures on how much of our information technology is domestically generated? Senators will take the next issue I raise to their hearts. I listened to people discuss the Residential Institutions Redress Board on radio this morning. It is important the Leader arrange for a debate to take place once the board has
reported because many people believe its remit should have been extended. Despite a Government commitment to pay the legal expenses of all those involved, solicitors are taking €15,000 or €20,000 from compensation payments before they are passed on to people who have already been damaged by the institutions of the State. This is a scandal. The House should review the issue when the Residential Institutions Redress Board concludes its work.

Statements on the Clare Street Initiative - 11th October 2005

Statements on the Clare Street Traffic Management Initiative - 11th October 2005

Mr. Norris: I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Frank Fahey, to the House. I note that the Minister for State at the Department of Transport, Deputy Callely, was forced to leave this House temporarily to address another transport matter in Dáil Éireann but has indicated that he will return and address as many of the points as he can, even those raised during his absence.
I welcome this imaginative initiative. I understand the competition that exists between the different political parties with regard to initiatives but I think this initiative is slightly different. I like the fact that it includes the small person, anecdotal evidence and people's actual driving experience. When I look at the management of traffic in Dublin, I wonder sometimes if any of the people responsible for it actually drive around the city. The Minister of State has invited anecdotal evidence so I will talk about my experience of driving into Dublin from County Wicklow because it was illustrative of certain problems we all confront.
It would be useful if the Minister of State came in at this point because the initiative has not taken a final shape. He is giving us an idea of what is happening, the participants and the kind of programme he envisages but we still have the opportunity to affect it through debate in this House, which is a very useful and productive political exercise, and I look forward to the Minister of State's return to the House. This initiative has been widely welcomed. I received an e-mail from Dr. Margaret O'Mahony, who is head of the department of civil and structural engineering at Trinity College, Dublin, and who was involved in the initiative. She wrote that she welcomed the initiative quite strongly because she regards it as the start of a process to examine and implement strategies of relatively low cost. She wrote that the focus of the initiative is at transport user level, both for road and public transport users. She explains in further detail why she thinks the initiative is particularly useful.
In his speech, the Minister of State spoke about his visit to Munich in Germany, which I would be interested in learning more about. I understand the Minister of State was told by Dr. Manfred Rothkopf of the Munich and Upper Bavaria Chamber of Commerce and Industry that ten years ago, the traffic congestion in Munich was at the same level it is currently in Dublin yet the city managed to overcome it. The principle axis of this recovery, although it is not stated, was public transport and an underground metro system. The one thing that the Minister of State did not mention was a solid commitment to a metro system, which is the only measure that will resolve Dublin's traffic problems. It is inexcusable that we have not supported the Minister of State because I know he is a favour of a metro; it is obvious when one reads the newspapers. This Government should behave imaginatively and endorse the metro. It is not possible to say today as people did ten, 15 or 20 years that there is no money for a metro when Ireland is dripping with money. The money that was wasted on computer systems could have been used on a metro. Over €1 billion in unanticipated tax revenues is a nice windfall that could be used on a metro and would be very cost-beneficial.

We would get a good return from our investment.
The Minister of State seemed to invite anecdotal evidence so I will share the experience I had today. I travelled from County Wicklow and I do not know how, but I managed to get on the M50. I had a remarkably smooth journey, and it was absolutely terrific. It was the type of experience one would imagine on an autobahn in Germany until I reached the canal where there were roadworks. One then shared the road with the Luas and traffic was reduced to one lane. I turned across in Goldenbridge and was in a queue for 15 minutes because the traffic was inappropriately managed. Almost every driver except me wanted to turn right but there was no feeder light to allow them to do so. Every time the traffic light changed, only one car, if any, managed to escape. That was unnecessary congestion.
My temper was not improved when I diverted and arrived at the top of Eccles Street to find the Mater Hospital disgorging what I assume were rural visitors, and it was impossible to move. I was completely stuck. There was no attempt to manage the situation of all of these people who naturally want to visit their relatives in hospital. This gummed up the traffic and there was no movement whatsoever. An imaginative solution is required for this, perhaps a lollypop person, I do not know. In Parnell Street an unusual measure has been taken, whereby a commercial company has been facilitated with its own traffic light. The Ilac Centre has a traffic light all to itself. We must examine all of these matters.
The issue of cycle lanes was not referred to in the Minister of State's speech and is one we should examine. Earlier we discussed the tragic situation in Donegal where a number of young people were killed. I did not agree with the analysis of my colleague who mentioned heavy goods vehicles. That is not relevant. All of these weekend accidents are similar and involve quite a large number of young people in one vehicle, in the early hours of Sunday morning, travelling home from a social event. Those are the common factors. No heavy goods vehicle was involved.
A tremendous increase in fatalities has occurred. Up to 11 a.m. today, 275 collisions and 303 deaths had occurred this year. I will not analyse these figures in detail because it is not directly relevant to this evening's debate. However, only 260 collisions and 295 deaths occurred during all of 2004. We still have a few months left in 2005 and we have already surpassed that. I introduce this point because of the notion of safety. I used to cycle quite a lot but I would be terrified to do so now. It is impossible because of SUVs, which is another issue to be examined. As a result of research done by Trinity College, we know they are more dangerous than other vehicles. A pedestrian hit by an SUV is twice as likely to be killed. There is also the roll-over syndrome that has been unearthed through research in the United States. These vehicles are not merely gas guzzlers, they are dangerous monsters on the road.
For this reason, I would have liked to have involved the lobby group representing cyclists in Dublin, the Dublin Cycling Campaign, in the consultations. Perhaps it is not too late to involve it. I know it attempted to contact the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen. Its representatives wrote to the Minister on 1 February 2005, 7 March 2005 and 30 March 2005 to request a meeting but did not even get a reply. On 20 April the group had a letter published in The Irish Times. I also have experience of the fact that sometimes if one wants to get a reply from a politician, one writes to The Irish Times and one receives a quick reply if the letter is published, but one does not always get a reply from the office. This correspondence continued for some time and eventually an e-mail was sent. There seems to be a reluctance to involve the Dublin Cycling Campaign but it should be involved. If we can get more people onto bicycles and out of cars that will certainly help, but only marginally. The main issue is the metro.

Another thought has struck me on my experience today. The M50, which is an

orbital road, is great. When I got closer to the city I hit the South Circular Road, a

previous attempt at a ring road. I am astonished to hear in the Minister of State's

speech that the greater Dublin area now includes Kildare, Wicklow and Meath.

Motion on The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act - 11th October 2005

The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act: Motion - 11th October 2005

Mr. Norris: I am happy to add my strong support to this important initiative. We are very lucky to have friends in the United States such as Senators Kennedy and McCain and representatives Kolbe, Flake and Gutierrez. We are also lucky to have former Taoiseach, John Bruton, nicely positioned in Washington as European Union representative. I am sure he would never consider abusing that position but it is always valuable to have people present to create a climate of opinion.
I am curious as to why there seems to be so much dispute about the figures. The United States Government seems to believe there are 3,000 illegal Irish immigrants. Others say there are 50,000 and the Minister says there are approximately 25,000. He suggested some kind of computer tracking but this seems to have fizzled out.
In his speech, the Minister stated: "In the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September, the United States Government moved quickly and decisively to confront the threat of terrorism at home." In spite of all my goodwill towards the United States, I do not agree with that statement. Its Government moved clumsily and ineffectively to address the threat. It actually inhibited seriously the civil and human rights of its own citizens and those of people seeking to enter the United States, either for travel or business, or permanently.
The United States has traditionally experienced mass immigration. In all countries, including our own, people get pernickety over these issues. I sometimes wonder how legal was the mass influx of people into America, North and South, in the initial stages. Did anybody invite the people in, were they vetted and did they have proper permits? We flooded the United States with European people who wiped out as many members of the indigenous population as they could. On the penetration of the United States from Mexico, most of the people concerned are the descendants of people who were in North America long before the Untied States was every contemplated. This is a little ironic.
Figures from Homeland Security statistics suggest that, between 1981 and 1990, Ireland contributed 31,969 people. In the ten-year period from 1991 to 2000, this figure rose to 56,900, which is almost 60,000. However, in 2001, this number dropped to between 1,000 and 1,500 and remained at approximately this level ever since. This tells a tale. Between 2000 and 2004, some 273 Irish people were actually deported from the United States. This also shows a change in attitude in that country.
Although I am sometimes a critic of the Roman Catholic Church, I believe it, including some of its current and past bishops, among them Bishop Eamon Casey, has done very remarkable, generous and good-hearted work on behalf of Irish emigrants in both Britain and the United States. It was very interesting that Bishop Seamus Hegarty launched the initiative Supporting the Irish Abroad. I read a very interesting article by Fr. Michael Leonard, who drew a very interesting comparison between the slavery of Saint Patrick in Ireland and the conditions of Irish emigrants abroad. He states: "Because many of them are 'illegal' they are forced to work longer hours for less wages and with none of the benefits, which are available to the rest of the work force." Let me put this in a particular context and refer to a statement by a very distinguished female cleric, Sr. Stanislaus Kennedy, who has worked tirelessly for the poor of this country. She stated migrant workers on work permits in Ireland tend to be in low-paid work, often below the minimum wage, and that finding good quality affordable accommodation can be difficult. She also claimed that, as work permits are of a temporary nature, there is little guarantee of permanent employment and that, as a result, people are forced to stay in rented accommodation. Is it not interesting to put these two views together?
The people Sr. Stanislaus Kennedy refers to are migrant workers, who are in the country legally. What about the asylum seekers and refugees? Although I support the initiative under discussion, I cry shame on a Government that does not see the discrepancy between what it is asking the United States to do for our people and the way in which we treat people who come to this country in identical circumstances. We have forgotten the nature of the Irish experience in Britain and America. It is shameful. It is inappropriate for Ministers to trot around telling cock and bull stories to the effect that many asylum seekers are bogus without stating any referenced facts.
Let me put on the record the case of a Nigerian man who came here in 2000, as I did some days ago on the Order of Business. In that year he applied for refugee status in Ireland on humanitarian grounds but was denied. On 11 September, that extraordinary date, he was found washed up in Skerries after having committed suicide. He was denied the right to stay in this country and was to be forcibly repatriated. He killed himself on foot of a deportation order. This was not a cock and bull story but the story of somebody who felt the alternative of taking his own life was preferable to returning to the country in which he had been born. We, as citizens of this country, with all our privileges, should bear that in mind and remember that the experience of such people entering our country must be considered with the same sensitivity we request from the authorities in the United States.
Let me conclude by quoting one of the most splendid politicians of the past 30 or 40 years, that is, Senator Edward Kennedy. When in America I have often watched him on C-SPAN television. He is not in the glare of publicity but is working hard and with real political intelligence and moral commitment on a raft issues. He really got it right when he stated: "We offer a fair deal: if they are willing to work hard for us openly, then we're willing to do something fair for them. It's long past time to put the underground economy, above ground, and recognize the reality of immigrants in our workforce." Hear, hear, say I. However, let us learn this lesson ourselves and apply it to the circumstances in our own jurisdiction and not just try to teach it to the Americans.

Statements on the Corrib Gas Field - 6th October 2005

Corrib Gas Field: Statements. – 6th October 2005

Mr. Norris: I listened to Senator Mansergh's contribution with great interest and in response to his last comment I would say that Shell really needs to revise its entire ethos and modus operandi. The company stinks worldwide, but we were not sufficiently aware of this fact and we have let them away with potential murder in this country. If, as Senator Mansergh also said, international business will look at what is happening here, then let them look. Let them see that Irish people and the Government have standards. It seems extraordinary that five decent, respectable people in the community were sent to jail at the instigation of Shell Oil. These men did not have to go to jail but they were pushed into that position by the company. It also seems extraordinary that they were jailed while trying to defend their own homes, welfare and possibly even their lives, which should be a constitutional imperative.
Some technical aspects emerged from the court proceedings that may require the attention of the Oireachtas. I was astonished, for example, to find that when the men went to court to seek an injunction they were told by the judge that they could not have an injunction because they were in contempt of court. How many other civil and human rights are extinguished by the fact that one is held to be in contempt of court? How does the law of contempt work? Following a conversation with a learned judge recently, I understand that the concept of contempt came originally from the ecclesiastical courts. It is unsatisfactorily defined in legislation and it is left to the decision of a judge based on a certain amount of precedent. That is not satisfactory, particularly when it has been highlighted that these men were sent to jail on this basis.
These men were right to protect their homes. There used to be a saying that "the Englishman's home is his castle". Ironically, in Finnegan's Wake, James Joyce changes that saying to read, "the Irishman's home is his coffin". The Rossport five were afraid of an untested pipeline with unusually high pressures passing within 70 m of their homes, which constitutes a real and definite threat.
From the beginning, the whole process has been vitiated by different ministerial decisions. The decision of Coillte to sell 400 acres without advertisement or any attempt at public tendering had an effect on Shell's commercial decisions. Once the company had that block of land it predetermined the location and route of the project and, thus, Shell was under no pressure to do anything more in that regard. That was a significant failure of imagination on the part of the authorities.
The former Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Fahey, signed the Corrib development plan in April 2002. It sounds very bland to sign such a plan but this act legally committed the State to support Shell and it was done prior to the granting of planning permission. It was done on the basis of the Department's own marine licensing vetting committee but the MLVC did not consider a shallow water platform so how did the project come about?
I wish to place on the record of the House what the senior officer of An Bord Pleanála said about this decision: "How the MLVC came to its conclusions would appear to be beyond the realms of a rational approach to the planning of this major infrastructural development and exhibits nothing short of prematurity." It is beyond rationality. First, this block of land was granted and, second, we had this unusual support based on what is seen as a flawed argument by the Government.
Should we feel secure because Shell is involved? I do not think so. If we look at the company's track record internationally, we can see it is good at spin. It bought into things like National Geographic and it sponsors environmental programmes on television, while simultaneously destroying the environment in places such as Nigeria.
Its modus operandi although subtly changed from Nigeria is in essence precisely the same and reveals a complete contempt for local people as long as it can get the Government on its side and its PR merchants in with the spin.
Let us consider the record in Nigeria. Shell Oil was complicit in the fact that the Nigerian Government hanged nine environmentalists for protesting peacefully in 1995. The tribunal that convicted the men was a joint effort between Shell and the Nigerian Government. These people protested because of the enormous amounts of oil spillage in their territory against which they were totally unprotected. Between 1976 and 1991 some 2,976 oil spills occurred in the Niger delta. A World Bank investigation found that the levels of hydrocarbon pollution in Ogoniland were more than 60 times the US limits. This was confirmed in 1997 by a Project Underground survey which found petroleum hydrocarbons in one Ogoni village's water source at 360 times the limit set for the European Community. This is the respect for the environment that Shell Oil has in Nigeria.
Let us consider how Shell copes with this situation. In Nigeria as in Ireland there is a rebellious local population. Shell uses the local existing institutions to hand. In Ireland there is a complacent Government and requirements are placed on judges to make certain decisions. I do not criticise the Judiciary in that it is working with what it has. Shell contributes to the military funding in the areas where it needs to suppress the people. Shell has admitted that it has paid directly for visits to two villages in Ogoniland. These visits were as a result of a peaceful demonstration by the local inhabitants. It has also admitted purchasing weapons for the local police force which guards its facilities. Many people believe that Shell's involvement in the military aspect is much greater.
Bearing in mind that the police are partly funded by Shell Oil, a classified memorandum from a police leader in this area described his plans for "psychological tactics of displacement-wasting". This is what Shell is doing in the west of Ireland; it is displacing the people. The memorandum further stated: "Shell operations are still impossible unless ruthless military operations are undertaken." It is prepared to be ruthless militarily and it is prepared to be ruthless in its involvement in the courts. Let us consider what it did in the trial of Ken Saro-Wiwa. We now know that two significant witnesses in that case were suborned by Shell with offers of money and employment in the Shell group.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Dardis): The Senator has one minute remaining.

Mr. Norris: I am not just some left-wing crank talking about this matter. The United Nations Special Rapporteur's report on Nigeria published in 1998 accused both Nigeria and Shell of abusing human rights and failing to protect the environment. It condemned Shell for a "well armed security force which is intermittently employed against protestors". This is what we are dealing with. This is the heart of darkness.
Let us consider the dangers. Shell places advertisements and gets the media involved. It stated that the gas coming from the head to Bellanaboy is treated gas. I agree that chemicals will be injected into it, for example, anti-freeze and corrosion inhibitor. However, it is still untreated gas and is just as dangerous. While it can claim to add chemicals, they are not chemicals that will alleviate the situation.
The gas will pass through the pipe at enormous pressure. Has anybody considered that this activity will take place over a bog? We had a bog slide a year or two ago. It is a highly unstable environment. They talk of floating a pipe on a concrete platform, which would be absolutely useless. A US army corps of engineers manual on foundations in soft ground suggests that considerably more than a simple concrete raft would be necessary.
I have received a letter from a learned gentleman with a PhD in this area in which he suggests that in particular conditions, for example a cold and foggy day in February with the soil and sea temperatures at approximately 5° centigrade, a pipe burst could result in an enormous explosion from a hemispherical cloud 272 m across and 136 m high.

Acting Chairman: Other speakers wish to contribute and we have very little time left.

Mr. Norris: It would be impossible for any fire brigade to deal with such an explosion. We need to be very careful and should support the plain people of Ireland against a multinational corporation that has a record that stinks to high heaven and is clearly dangerous to human life.

Order of Business - 5th October 2005

The Order of Business - 5th October 2005

Mr. Norris: I am sure my colleagues will join me in congratulating the Garda on the seizure of cocaine at Dublin Airport, the arrest of two women and in particular the location of a crack cocaine factory in a flat in Phibsboro, which is apparently run by what was described as a west African gang. The gang has a specific new formula for creating this drug which makes it much more easily marketable. This is a very dangerous, debilitating and addictive drug which is behind much of the violence we currently see in the city. Arguments can be made on both sides regarding the legalisation of cannabis, for example, but crack cocaine is a quite different, dangerous drug. We should congratulate the Garda on its successful operation.
I was interested in the question raised by my colleague, Senator Ryan, about ethos, and ethical committees. I thought he was going to raise something which should be discussed in this House if it is appropriate, namely the situation whereby, perhaps as a result of the fact that the religious institutions were exempted from the equality laws, the Mater Hospital, by means of its ethical committee, inhibits women from taking part in drug trials for lung cancer treatment because of the requirement that they not become pregnant. The advice given by the drug companies that women should ensure they do not become pregnant lists artificial contraception as one of the prevention options, which conflicts with the ethos of the Catholic Church.
It is questionable that an institution which receives considerable public funds should stop treatment of this kind or such drug trials. A professor in St. Vincent's Hospital has described the decision as sectarian.
An Cathaoirleach: Time, Senator, please.
Mr. Norris: I am not the only computer-illiterate person in the general vicinity. We have seen the scandal of the computer system in the Department of Health and Children, but we previously had a debate on the enormous expenditure of money on electronic voting machines, a system which proved inadequate. One of the matters we teased out in this House at the time was that the people designing those machines on the continent of Europe, in Holland as I understand, had not been required to test them against a particular Irish model.
An Cathaoirleach: There are other Senators offering. This is not fair.
Mr. Norris: In this latest instance, I understand that an instruction was given that the programme was not to be tested against the idiosyncrasies of the Irish system. That is bizarre. What are those responsible doing? A huge waste of money is involved and I hope there will be a discussion on the matter.