Order of Business - 24th November 2005

Order of Business – 24th November 2005
Mr. Norris: Yesterday we had an important and balanced debate on the war in Iraq, extraordinary rendition and torture. Will the Leader help the Seanad by pursuing this matter, first, by continuing to monitor the situation, as we did previously, by having rolling debates and, second, by sending the report of yesterday's debate to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern? While the Minister was ably represented in the debate by two Ministers of State, he was not present in the House. It is important that he should have a copy of the debate because the House was told he would raise the matter with Condoleezza Rice. A copy of the debate would be a valuable instrument at that meeting.
I would also like a copy of the debate to be sent to the US ambassador. Following yesterday's debate, a television programme on Channel 4 interviewed a victim in this case. An aeroplane which lands regularly at Shannon Airport, of which viewers were shown photographs, was implicated. A Swiss Member of Parliament is establishing a committee to investigate this situation. Denmark has banned the aeroplane, Austrian fighter jets intercepted it and escorted it out of Austrian airspace and Hungary has searched it. We have, as yet, done nothing. There is now a Council of Europe investigation into a particular flight. The registration details of this aeroplane, about which we have complained, its itinerary and the dates of the flights are listed, and Shannon Airport is included in that naming process.
For the first time, this aeroplane, about which we have done nothing, is clearly identified. If the Minister for Foreign Affairs is to raise the matter, it would be important for him to know of the strong feeling on all sides of the House in this regard. The aeroplane is known as the "Guantanamo express". It is a shame that we allow the "Guantanamo express" to pass through our airspace.

Senator David Norris's Private Members Time Debate - 23rd November 2005

Private Members Time Debate

23rd November 2005
^ Iraq War: Motion. ^

Mr. Norris: I move:
That Seanad Éireann concerned at the progress of the war in Iraq, and in light of recent revelations and admissions by the United States authorities:
----condemns the use of chemical agents such as white phosphorus, MK77, by US forces;
----expresses its revulsion at the discovery of 170 persons apparently victims of torture in the basement of the Iraqi Interior Ministry;
----calls upon the Irish Government to review its policy on the use of Shannon Airport and to make a definite and credible statement concerning the nature of this traffic, in particular, the use of the airport by the Gulfstream Five jet aircraft which has been implicated in the policy of extraordinary rendition;
----calls for restrictions on the international media in the reporting of the Iraqi war to be lifted and for full access to be granted to international agencies such as the Red Cross, Red Crescent, etc., in order to allow them to assess the impact of military operations on the civilian population of Iraq; and
----calls for the establishment of an international inquiry into the attack on Falluja.
I do not envy the Minister his position of having to defend an indefensible Government amendment. The reason I will oppose it so vigorously is that my motion was intended to cause discomfort to the American regime in its criminal activities. The Government's amendment is anodyne; it is an attempt to soothe the discomfort. I agree with the Dalai Lama that even though there is a great disparity between the size of a flea and that of a human, it is sometimes good to be the flea in the bed that keeps people awake and awakens their conscience.
It is becoming clear now that, despite President Bush's vainglorious boasts during an electioneering stunt on board the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln on 2 May 2003 in front of a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished", American and British troops have not prevailed in Iraq. The truth is as a correspondent in the British newspaper The Independent wrote on Monday this week: "The endgame in Iraq is nigh." Some of us foresaw this. I was not alone in predicting that the Iraqi adventure would end in tears. Militarily, I believe the war is in the process of being comprehensively lost despite whatever face saving spin is put upon it. I take no pleasure in this for, unlike Bush and Blair, I do not gloat in death - the death of Iraqi civilians, the so-called insurgents or, indeed, the unfortunate and misled coalition troops.
However, there is still time to rescue something vital from the debacle. I refer to those standards of decency and humanity that underpin the fragile moral order of the world and the two words that have been so violently misused by Bush and Blair, "democracy" and "Christianity".
It is now a clearly established fact that the assault on Iraq was planned well before the attack on the World Trade Centre. The events of 9 September 2001 merely provided a convenient catalyst which could be supported by a tissue of lies about weapons of mass destruction and posturing about an interest in humanitarian issues. Indeed, the media driven emphasis on the al-Qaeda inspired attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon failed to put this in the perspective of the activities of Western countries, led by the United States in South America where death squads and torture were orchestrated by US operatives and in Asia where the wholesale employment of the chemical warfare weapon Agent Orange and napalm led to the annihilation of hundreds of thousands of neutral civilians in places such as Vietnam and Kampuchea.
Did they think it would never come home to roost? Despite the appalling nature of the carnage in New York and Washington and the tragedy and horror visited upon the innocent victims, to whom my heart goes out, the number of casualties was but a pinprick compared with what has been done to the subjugated people of this planet in the name of the West. If the disaster of the war in Iraq can be said to have any positive aspect it is that it must force us to reassess and reassert our values in the face of those wicked leaders who have deliberately subverted them.
It is ironic that last Sunday marked the 60th anniversary of the opening of the Nuremberg war crimes trials. The US played a righteous and leading role in this, contrasting dramatically with its current attempts to evade the remit of the newly-established International Criminal Court. We are repeatedly told that this war is being fought in the interests of Western values. My values as a Westerner do not include the waging of aggressive warfare, the wholesale use of torture, the bombing of civilian targets and the use of chemical weapons.
We had many warning signals that we were on a moral slide, and some of us tried to speak out but we were not heeded. We witnessed the systematic undermining of the United Nations, the decrying of the Geneva Convention, the targeting of the independent news agencies - particularly troubling are yesterday's reports that Tony Blair had to fight hard to dissuade President Bush from bombing the al-Jazeera studios in Qatar - the killing of journalists, the embedding of reporters with armed forces to prevent independent reporting, and the defence of the use of torture, at first insidious and anonymous but now reaching to the very top through the discredited agencies of the law, right up to the leaders of the Untied States and Britain. All this has been accomplished to the accompaniment of a cynical abuse of language the like of which has not been seen since the Third Reich. I could give many examples of that but I will give only two. Extraordinary rendition, the euphemism to cover the kidnapping of individuals and the illegal transfer of persons to third states for the purpose of torture and interrogation, and the appalling concept of targeting human beings with chemical weapons such as white phosphorous, a corrosive substance that burns through the human flesh to the bone, in an operation described as "shake and bake".
Nor will I be intimidated by those who would accuse me of being anti-American. In this morass the best friend America has is the person who will them the truth to their face and among those I number a former President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, who stated:
In recent years I have become increasingly concerned by a host of radical Government policies that now threaten many basic principles espoused by all previous administrations, Democratic and Republican. These include the rudimentary American commitment to peace, economic and social justice, civil liberties, our environment and human rights. Also endangered are our historic commitment to providing citizens with truthful information ...
In this article entitled "This is not the country that I once knew", recently commissioned and published by the Los Angeles Times, President Carter continued:
Of even greater concern is that the US has repudiated the Geneva Accords and supported the use of torture in Iraq, Afghanistan, Quantanamo and secretly through proxy regimes else where with the so called Extraordinary Rendition programme. It is embarrassing to see the President and Vice President insisting that the CIA should be free to perpetrate "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment" on people in US custody.
In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to see how the trial of Saddam Hussein can proceed. He is charged with waging aggressive war, using chemical weapons, involvement in torture and other human rights abuses. This is an exact description of what the United States and Britain have done in Iraq. How can they possibly be taken seriously when they are accused of another of those crimes of which they themselves are guilty? This is just one of the ironies with which this situation is replete. The tyrannical monster, Saddam Hussein, may ultimately escape justice because of the moral bankruptcy of those forces led by Bush and Blair.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a tyranny but it was functional. It was held together by a central authority. It now looks as if the outcome of the west's intervention will be to leave behind a fragmented and shattered society dominated by a religious clique whose strings are pulled from Teheran. Meanwhile, the people suffer ever more intensely. One hundred thousand civilians have been killed, according to figures published by the Lancet, which the British and American Governments dishonestly tried to undermine. The provision of electricity and sewerage services are worse than it was under Saddam, and the people are subject to terror not just from the allies but from roving bands of militia and death squads. It is a comprehensive reign of terror.
I want to examine the question of the use of chemical weapons, which is a contentious issue. What is referred to here is a new generation of incendiary weapons code named MK77. These are the linear descendants of weapons widely used in Korea and later in Vietnam. Their use was denied last June in response to a question in the House of Commons by Mr. Adam Ingram, Defence Minister. However, later Mr. Ingram was forced to admit to Labour MP Harry Cohen that he had misled Parliament because he had been lied to by the US. He told Mr. Cohen:
The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you. I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position.
I spoke last weekend to Mr. Cohen in Edinburgh and he confirmed these facts.
In light of this and the American doctrine of plausible deniability, why should the Minister for Transport or the Minister for Foreign Affairs believe, for example, the denial concerning the Gulfstream V jet given by unnamed officials of unknown rank within the Bush Administration. I have since spoken to our Foreign Minister. It was not even at that level. It was junior officials in the American Embassy in Dublin.
The 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons appears to permit the use of this kind of material but only for illumination purposes and only against military targets. MK77 is a napalm canister munition. The containers lack stabilising fins and consequently acquire a tumbling motion on being dropped that contributes to the scattering of the combustible gel over a wide area. Its use is a violation of the Geneva Protocol Against the Use of White Phosphorus "since its use causes indiscriminate and extreme injuries especially when deployed in an urban area". The effect of this material was certainly known to the United States army before its use. The Marine Corps Gazette, an official organ of the American army, contains the following description of so-called thermobaric or fuel air weapons:
Such weapons on ignition form a cloud of violent gases or finely powdered explosives. This cloud is then ignited and the subsequent fireball sears the surrounding area while consuming the oxygen in this area. The lack of oxygen creates an enormous overpressure. Persons under the cloud are literally crushed to death. Outside the cloud area the blast wave travels at some 3,000 metres per second. As a result a fuel-air explosive can have the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon without residual radiation. Those personnel caught directly under the aerosol cloud will die from the flame or overpressure. For those on the periphery of the strike, the injuries can be severe. Burns, broken bones, contusions from flying debris and blindness may result. Furthermore, the crushing injuries from the overpressure can create air embolisms within blood vessels, concussions, multiple internal haemorrhages in the liver and spleen, collapsed lungs, rupture of the eardrums and displacement of the eyes from their sockets.
This is the material that was used in Falluja. There is no doubt that it caused a holocaust. I would put those who deny it in the same category as those who denied the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews.
It must be remembered that the United States and British Governments have steadfastly refused to keep or release statistics concerning the number of civilian casualties. Indeed, in December 2003, the Iraqi health Minister, under pressure from Washington and London, ordered a halt to the count of civilians killed during the war. Moreover, when United States soldiers stormed Falluja their first action was to seize the general hospital and arrest the doctors. The New York Times reported: "The hospital was selected as an early target because the American military believed that it was a source of rumours about heavy casualties".
Were civilians killed in addition to military personnel? We know that before attacking the city the Marines stopped men of fighting age from leaving. They were categorised according to age, not according to military occupation. In addition, many women and children stayed. A correspondent with The Guardian, for example, estimated that between 30,000 and 50,000 civilians were left.
In the March 2005 edition of the American army magazine, Field Artillery, officers from the second infantry fire support element boast about their attack on Falluja. It states:
White Phosphorus. WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breaches and later in the fight as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes where we could not get effects on them with high explosive. We fired "Shake and Bake" missions at the insurgents using White Phosphorus to flush them out and high explosive to take them out.
There is a further eye witness account by an embedded reporter, published in California's North County Times, which confirms the matter. I note in that account the use of the phrase "insurgents". Who are these insurgents? I will give an example of the way this phrase is used.
On 16 October 2005, a group of adults and children gathered around a burnt out American vehicle on the edge of the city of Ramadi. There was some horse-play from the children. The group was attacked by a US F15 fighter jet. Subsequently, the US military released a report saying it had killed 70 insurgents and knew of no civilian deaths. Among the "insurgents" killed were six year old Mohammad Salih Ali, who was buried in a plastic bag after relatives collected what they believed to be parts of his body, and four year old Saad Ahmed Fuad and his eight year old sister, Haifa, who had to buried without one of her legs as her family were unable to find it. It is very necessary although harrowing to put human faces on these victims, so easily dismissed as insurgents. It is also useful to remind ourselves that according to a 1978 United Nations General Assembly resolution, armed resistance in the case of occupation is legitimate. So insurgency is legitimate but what about the murder of children? Is that legitimate?
We have, in addition, accounts from an embedded reporter, Darrin Mortenson, describing the firing of "round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city of Fallujah Friday and Saturday never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused". Another reporter, Dahr Jamail, reports speaking to a doctor who had remained in the city of Falluja and encountered numerous reports of civilians suffering unusual burns. One surviving resident of Falluja described "weird bombs which put up smoke like a mushroom cloud" and described watching "pieces of these bombs explode into large fires that continue to burn on the skin even after people dump water on the burn". A physician at a local hospital said that the corpses being brought in were "burnt and some corpses were melted".
Further eye witness accounts include that of Jeff Englehart, a former marine, who spent two days in Falluja during the battle. He has since said in an interview:
I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorous on Falluja. In military jargon it is known as Whiskey Pete. Phosphorous burns the body; in fact, it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone. I saw the burnt bodies of women and children.
Moreover, even if one accepts an argument on technical and legal bases for the use of white phosphorous as an illumination, the United States army's own regulations, as contained in the US Army and General College Staff Battle Book indicates that its use as described above is illegal. Burster-type white phosphorous rounds burn with intense heat and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in a smoke screen to rapidly create smoke, or against material targets such as class five sites or logistics sites. It is against the law of the land, however, to employ white phosphorous against personnel targets. Many of us were already worried about the use of cluster bombs, which particularly target children, and depleted uranium with its consequent impact on civilian health.
With regard to torture, there has been a consistent attempt by the United States Government and its agents to legitimise the use of torture in a manner that has completely shocked most European nations. An enormous number of people have been arbitrarily detained. A Pentagon report released in the last week reveals that 13, 814 persons are held in United States custody in Iraq out of a total of more than 80,000 detained in facilities there and in Afghanistan and Cuba since September 11 2001.
One of the major problems in Iraq is that the coalition forces have largely abdicated the responsibility for policing in favour of local sectarian militias. The result has been the emergence of death squads and the phenomenon of disappearances. There have been repeated unsuccessful attempts to persuade the allies to investigate the persistent stories of torture being carried out under the aegis of the Minister of the Interior.


Mr. Norris: I distance myself from the remarks made by Senator Ryan and exonerate the Minister of State for any inappropriate attitude. I did not attack him personally but simply placed a factual legal matter on the record of the House. It would be easy for me to try to embarrass my colleagues on the Government benches but I will not do so. Instead, I salute them on their moral courage in saying what they said. I am proud of them and thank them from the bottom of my heart for the position they have taken. My colleague, Senator O'Toole, made the very good suggestion that this matter be taken back to their party for discussion - that is the democratic way to do it. I am not bothered about the vote. It is now perfectly clear that it is a farce because the House has spoken with a unified voice, which is terribly important.
I pay tribute to the decency of some of the American troops. It was as a result of their activities in searching for a missing teenage boy that the torture victims were found beaten and starved in an Iraqi Government bunker last week. We now know that 173 detainees were arbitrarily arrested and held without charge in the basement of the Interior Ministry building, after which they were held in an underground bunker. The sectarian nature of the detentions is clear from the fact that all the detainees were Sunni Muslims. Mr. Abdul-Hamid, head of the Iraqi Islamic Party, said in a statement, "According to our knowledge, regrettably all the detainees were Sunnis. In order to search for a terrorist, they used to detain hundreds of innocent people and torture them brutally."
Reports printed in reputable newspapers such as The Guardian include the information that, in addition to live persons, mutilated corpses - including some with electric drill holes in their heads - and torture instruments had also been found at the underground bunker. Another paper of record, The Observer, stated that its reporters had seen photographic evidence of post mortem and hospital examinations of alleged terror suspects from Baghdad and the Sunni triangle which demonstrates serious abuse of suspects, including burnings, strangulation, the breaking of limbs and, in one case, the apparent use of an electric drill to perform a knee capping. This is all part of a pattern.
One could take the case of an imam, Mr. Hassan an-Ni'ami, at a suburban mosque in Baghdad. He was arrested by paramilitary police commandos and taken for interrogation. His capture was reported on television as that of a senior terrorist commander, which was untrue. Twelve hours later, his body was in the city morgue. The Observer states:
What happened to him in his twenty four hours in captivity was written across his body in chapters of pain, recorded by the camera. There are police-issue handcuffs still attached to one wrist, from which he was hanged long enough to cause his hands and wrists to swell. There are burn marks on his chest as if someone had placed something very hot near his right nipple and moved it around.
A little lower are a series of horizon welts, wrapping around his body and breaking the skin as they turn around his chest, as if he had been beaten with something flexible, perhaps a cable. There are other injuries: a broken nose and smaller wounds that look like cigarette burns.
An arm appears to have been broken and one of the higher vertebrae pushed inwards. There is a cluster of small, neat circular wounds on both sides of his left knee. At some stage an-Ni'ami seems to have been efficiently knee capped. It was not done with a gun - the exit wounds are identical in size to the entry wounds, which would not happen with a bullet. Instead it appears to have been done with something like a drill.
This kind of behaviour happened under the gaze and with the tacit complicity of elements within the coalition forces. One international official stated:
What is so worrying is that allegations concerning the use of drills and irons during torture just keep coming back. And we have seen precisely the same evidence of torture on bodies that have turned up after they have been arrested. There is a dirty counter-insurgency war, led on the anti-insurgency side by groups responsible to different leaders.
America is at last waking up to this horror. It is for this reason that Republican Senator John McCain made an amendment to a military spending Bill in the Senate in which he proposed prohibiting the use of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment by US personnel anywhere in the world. The amendment was passed - 90 voted in favour and nine against. It was then incorporated into the Senate Bill, which was eventually passed with some other modifications. However, the House of Representatives passed its own version of the Bill in the past week, without any of these provisions relating to the treatment of detainees. Vice-President Dick Cheney has recently spent a great deal of time lobbying Republicans to make an exemption from the McCain amendment for the CIA. On top of this, President Bush has come into the open, supported torture tactics and threatened to use his presidential veto to strike down any proposal that includes a blanket ban on mistreatment.
It is a matter of shame that the Irish Government, despite repeated questions from me, the Leader of this House, members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and members of many parties in the Lower House, has made no qualification on the use of Shannon Airport for military traffic of all kinds. The Minister for Transport is responsible for civil aircraft while the Minister for Foreign Affairs is responsible for regulating the activities of foreign military aircraft. The carriage of weapons and munitions on civilian aircraft requires an exemption from the Minister for Transport. Up to and including 17 November 2005, a total of 1,287 exemptions had been granted by the Minister for Transport. Up to 31 October 2005, the number of US military troops passing through Shannon was 268,963. This makes us shamefully complicit in the waging of an illegal war.
A deeply worrying question arises regarding the Gulfstream V jet aircraft that has been permitted to continue using Shannon Airport's facilities. Other countries are not so pusillanimous and some ban the flights. Denmark had fighters intercept a suspect craft to get it out of its airspace. Austria searches aircraft on the ground. Hungary has also taken such measures.
Some time ago in this House I was able to demonstrate, by an analysis of replies given in the Lower House, that American officials had lied to the Minister, leading him to misinform the House that these flights had ceased. The CIA had merely changed the registration number of the plane. This plane is known to have been involved in extraordinary rendition - it has done nothing else. Why should one believe it is taking tourists through Shannon Airport? By extraordinary rendition, I refer to the kidnapping and transfer of suspected persons to third countries for the purposes of torture. On 21 May 2005, the foreign service of The Washington Post stated:
Stockholm -- the CIA Gulfstream V jet touched down at a small airport west of here just before 9 p.m. on a subfreezing night in December 2001 ... Swedish officers watched as CIA operatives pulled out scissors and rapidly sliced off the prisoners clothes, including their underwear ... At 9.47 p.m., less than an hour after its arrival at Bromma Airport, the jet took off on a five-hour flight to Cairo, where the prisoners, Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed Zery, were handed over to Egyptian security officials.
The Taoiseach, in a reply to Deputy Michael D. Higgins last week, quoted an unsourced Human Rights Watch report, which is itself the subject of serious doubt, to suggest that it is unlikely that a major civilian airport would be used by the CIA for this traffic. However, the BBC radio programme "File on Four" broadcast a report from Stephen Grey which states:
This is Dulles Airport, Washington, within easy reach of both the Pentagon and the CIA's headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Our flight logs showed that on almost every occasion when the Gulfstream jet leaves America, it passes through this airport.
The report further states that the Gulfstream jet also passes through Glasgow, Prestwick, Queen Ali International Airport in Amman, Jordan, and Kastrup Airport in Copenhagen. I am aware that citizens of this Republic have reported their suspicions and the detailed evidence from outside the State about the purposes to which this aircraft is put. The Garda has refused to take action and notification of these facts has been routinely ignored. As a result, I have written to Mr. Noel Conroy, the Garda Commissioner, as follows:
Dear Commissioner,
I am writing to you as a citizen and as an elected public representative to draw to your attention the fact that there is a clear prima facie case that a crime may have been committed by the landing of gulf stream jet, call sign N3 79P, at Shannon airport. I am also aware that a number of citizens have made complaints of a detailed nature to the police authorities in Limerick to no avail.
The aeroplane concerned has certainly been used by the American authorities for activities which are considered illegal under international law i.e. extraordinary rendition. You will be aware of the fact also that the Minister for Transport unintentionally misled the Dáil on the basis of misinformation supplied to the Government by unnamed American officials. You will be aware also that through the evidence of Harry Cohen MP the American authorities lied about the commission of parallel crimes by the employment of white phosphorus in Iraq a situation which led to Minister Adam Ingram MP misleading the House of Commons and having to admit this fact subsequently.
I have discussed this matter with members of the House of Commons at Westminster who are in possession of an opinion from international lawyers that the landing of such a plane if it is being used for such a purpose constitutes a crime under international law.
Ireland has already been reported because of this matter to United Nations Sub Committee for investigation. I am making this formal request that you fully investigate the matter and that this aeroplane is routinely subjected to garda investigation if and when it lands at Shannon airport. I should advise you that I will be making the contents of this message available to the international investigating authorities in the belief that further inaction by the garda authorities would be seriously regarded. I await a speedy reply.
Yours sincerely,
Senator David Norris
I encourage every Member of the House to write a similar letter to the Garda Commissioner. American public opinion is changing. No longer will people tolerate the bluster of Dick Cheney, who never served in Vietnam because he was able to pull strings and achieved no less than five draft deferments, infamously saying that he had "priorities in the sixties other than military service". He was content to send other people's children out to die. For a man such as that to accuse others-----

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has exceeded his time.

Mr. Norris: May I finish?

An Cathaoirleach: I am very generous.

Mr. Norris: The Cathaoirleach has been very generous, which I acknowledge.

Mr. Coghlan: He is always very generous.

Mr. Norris: For a man such as Dick Cheney to accuse others of cowardice and treachery and losing their memories and backbones is intolerable. Americans will tolerate it no longer. It is significant that Representative John Murtha, a known hawk in defence matters, has stated that the war had obviously been a mistake and that the American people were misled because intelligence reports had been exaggerated.
Having been labelled by the Administration as a defeatist, he received enormous support from the American public. He told NBC's "Meet the Press", "It is not me, it is the public that is thirsting for answers."
I am proud of this House tonight because of the decent behavior of my colleagues on the Government side. I honour them for it and I ask them to take the action I have requested.

Order of Business - 23rd November 2005

Order of Business – 23rd November 2005

Mr. Norris: I am sure the House will agree - I speak not just as a member of the National Union of Journalists but as a human being - that it is remarkable a memorandum has now emerged clearly demonstrating that it took Tony Blair to persuade George Bush not to bomb the al-Jazeera studio in Qatar. The British are so worried about the memorandum that they have invoked section 5 of the Official Secrets Act to stop the matter being discussed.
In light of this, I ask the Acting Leader to convene a meeting of the Government side, including the PDs, to discuss the appalling amendment put down against my Private Members' motion on Iraq for this evening. This question is directly relevant to the Order of Business. I ask this because, as I understand it, this matter has not been discussed among the Government Members, who have not yet had access to the amendment. It is notable that the only name on the Order Paper is that of the Leader, Senator O'Rourke.
I ask my colleagues on the other side of the House not to sign this amendment because it refers, among other things, to the fact that the Government has permitted overflights for almost 50 years. That included the period of the Vietnam War, when the US authorities transported Agent Orange and phosphorous, which they are doing again in regard to Iraq. This is precisely why this disgraceful amendment should be removed.
This matter went to Cabinet before coming back to the House but not one Member has yet had the opportunity to discuss it. Why are there no names of Government Members on the motion apart from that of Senator O'Rourke?
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris, please. The matter will be debated this evening.
Mr. Norris: Before the debate, I ask that democracy be instituted in this House. Instead of having this motion handed down from on high by people who are not elected to this House, with the names of Government Members to be added to it, this matter should be discussed by those Members. I ask them not to permit their names to be added to this motion, which would validate the use of Agent Orange and phosphorous bombs. It is a most craven and disgusting amendment.
Mr. B. Hayes: Hear, hear.
Mr. Norris: It is a disgrace to this House and should be withdrawn. Government Members should not allow their names to be attached with infamy to that amendment.

Order of Business - 22nd November 2005

Order of Business – 22nd November 2005

Mr. Norris: We in this House and you, a
Chathaoirligh, have often spoken about the need
to maintain the dignity of the House. May I commend
the Leader who yesterday represented this
establishment with extraordinary courage, patience
and tolerance when she came under an
onslaught from callers, some of whom were all
right but some of whom were ignorant in the
extreme in the personal grudge they had against
the race of politicians. The Leader did a good
day’s work on behalf of all of us for which I
thank her.
I was rather entertained earlier as I did not
realise there were non-existent schools. Perhaps
that is where I should send my non-existent children.
I also noted there was not a single Protestant
school among them. They are all single-sex
schools and all, with one exception, I think, are
run by members of religious orders. That is
interesting in light of the kind of negative debate
we have been having and in which I participated.
It indicates the contribution that some of these
people have made.
I ask for a debate on Tibet, if possible before
Christmas. I attended a meeting in Edinburgh
with the Dalai Lama and we drafted an Edinburgh
declaration. It is rather long but I will try
to digest it and put some of the points in a
motion. This man has been abandoned. He is one
person who stood for peace when everybody else
around the globe was trying to achieve their
objectives by violence. We should recognise that
and help his people in their desperation.
We all received an interesting document from
the Dublin City Business Association. The document
refers to the drinks industry, its powerful
lobbying, the destructive character it has taken
on, the volume of sales, the targeting of vulnerable
groups and associated crime. It also highlights
the virtual disempowerment of local residential
communities and local authorities to
successfully object to the granting and renewal of
alcohol licences within their area.
The document comes from a significant group
whose members are not hysterics. These are
people committed to the business life of our capital
city. They have produced a three-page document
indicating the damage that is being done by
alcohol abuse and I would like this serious communication
discussed in Seanad E´ ireann.

Order of Business - 17th November 2005

Order of Business – 17th November 2005

Mr. Norris: Will the Acting Leader get some
information and take some action on genetically
modified food? On 7 September, EU Commissioners
approved Monsanto’s GT73 oilseed rape
for use as animal feed despite opposition from 13
member states. While six member states voted for
it, because of qualified majority voting and the
abstention of countries such as Ireland, it went
through undemocratically at the whim of the
Commissioners.
This decision has serious consequences for
Ireland because we are in a good situation. We
are geographically isolated and are not affected
by pollen spread by wind. We have the lowest
exposure to GM food and that is a good marketing
strategy. This modified seed can cross-pollinate
with members of the brassica family such as
cabbage, kale and turnips.
Will the Acting Leader clarify the situation and
ask the Government to look at the implementation
implementation
of the so-called safeguard clause, Directive
2001/18/EC, recommended by the Oireachtas
Joint Committees on European Affairs and
Environment and Local Government? This
would protect an important national asset from a
potential threat from generically modified
organisms.
I propose an amendment to the Order of Business,
which is close to the Acting Leader’s heart,
namely, that No. 18, motion 22, be taken before
No. 1. The time limit on the Order of Business
should be extended to a maximum of 45 minutes
to facilitate the proper ventilation of topical
matters of current public interest by Members.
The motion is in the names of the Independent
Senators.

Order of Business - 16th November 2005

Order of Business – 16th November 2005

Mr. Norris: I wish to raise a matter that affects
innocent bystanders. It is a matter I and other
Senators have raised at the Joint Committee on
Foreign Affairs repeatedly over the past few
months but it has been confirmed today, namely,
the admission by the United States authorities
that it has been using napalm and white phosphorous
in the bombing of cities like Falluja. This
is chemical warfare. It is a very serious international
war crime that had been previously
denied by the United States. The operation is
called “Shake and Bake”. That is an extraordinary
way to describe the fate of human beings,
including civilians.
We also learn today that 170 people have been
discovered in conditions of great distress in the
basement of the security Ministry in Baghdad.
Once again, I and others have drawn attention to
this in recent months. If we here in Dublin knew
about these atrocities how is it that the American
authorities pose as being surprised about it? This
Administration has defended the use of torture,
has outsourced torture and a plane which in the
past has been used for this purpose has passed
through Shannon Airport. There has been no
investigation by the Irish authorities. If anybody
wants to know more about this I suggest they
look at a website and a video called, Falluja: The
Hidden Massacre.
These atrocities have been committed with silence
and complicity because of the utter lack of
journalistic objectivity due to the embedding of
reporters in Iraq. We must now protest. On foot
of this evidence, which is acknowledged and has
now been admitted, a serious war crime has been
committed. I ask that the Leader would urge the
Government to protest to the American authorities
in the name of humanity.

Order of Business - 15th November 2005

Order of Business – 15th November 2005

Mr. Norris: I support Senator Finucane and
others who have called for a debate on the rising
tide of violence but hope it will be conducted in
a non−partisan way because it affects everyone.
Some incidents are worrying. Ireland has changed
a great deal in my lifetime. I never thought I
would see the day when there would be contract
killings and that somebody would say he or she
received \10,000 for taking another human
being’s life. I would like to think that as a result
of a debate with the Minister we might get at the
people behind the contract killings. There is
something chilling about this notion.
I support Senator O’Toole’s comments on Irish
Ferries. The Labour Court has given its recommendation
and the Taoiseach yesterday said he
hopes it will be accepted, yet the company cavalierly
threw it aside. We need a debate on the
trade unions, and I say this with a specific matter
in mind. I must declare an interest. I am a
member of the actors’ union Irish Equity and I
have been briefed by SIPTU
Ms O’Rourke: We knew that.
Dr. Mansergh: We have noticed.
Mr. Norris: It is difficult to hear the Senators.
Perhaps they should join Equity too. Some projection
training might be useful. This is a serious
issue as it relates to the lowest paid workers in
the State. They earn \7,000 per annum, and they
represent us all over the world. They are the most
vulnerable people. It is extraordinary that the
Competition Authority has put a gun to the head
of SIPTU and said it cannot represent freelance
artists. Performance artists are regarded by the
Competition Authority as an undertaking or a
business if they make arrangements themselves.
They have been forced to sign an agreement saying
they will not provide or share with any
self−employed actor information relating to minimum
fees. That is astonishing. We must look at
this issue.
Competition law is supposed to protect consumers
from the creation of cartels and
non−competitive pricing. Here we have the weakest
members of society on pathetic incomes being
prevented from getting information on a proper
minimum wage. That is a reproach to us all and I
ask that this House consider the matter.

Statements on the Ferns Report - 10th November 2005

Statements on the Ferns Report – 10th November 2005-11-29

Mr. Norris: I am grateful to Senator Henry for
sharing time with me. This is not a pleasant
occasion or one on which anybody should gloat.
While nobody relishes the distress of a great institution
such as the Roman Catholic Church, it is
important that matters such as those addressed in
the Ferns report be exposed. I express my sympathy
on this occasion to the many decent priests
and members of religious orders and to the few
good and decent bishops, including Bishop Willie
Walsh, a remarkable and saintly man, Bishop
Eamonn Walsh in Ferns who appears to be doing
a good job, and Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of
the Dublin diocese, a decent, honourable and
fair man.
The Ferns report is devastating. The kinds of
comments being made and the attitude shown by
the Roman Catholic Church demonstrate that the
church has not changed — let us be honest in this
regard — and that the issue goes to the top of its
hierarchical structure, which the report examines.
It gives me no great pleasure to cite as an
example the late Pope John Paul II who, following
the departure of Cardinal Groer of Vienna
from his position as a result of a series of accusations
of molestation of seminarians which later
proved to be correct, wrote a letter to the Cardinal
to console him while maintaining a stony silence
towards the victims. The current Pope is
sheltering a person — he enjoys diplomatic
immunity in the Vatican — who established a
seminary in Mexico and is wanted by the authorities
there. Events such as these indicate where
the source of the trouble lies.
If one examines the appointments made in the
Catholic Church over the past 25 years, one finds
that people were appointed to senior positions on
the basis of their rigid orthodoxy in doctrinal
matters and their reactionary attitudes towards
modern developments in the understanding of
human sexuality. While no church has ever told
the truth about human sexuality, the worst
offender in this regard is the Roman Catholic
Church.
It is important that this Chamber highlight two
of the conclusions reached in the report, both of
which I will cite. On page 22, the report states:
“The Expert Group was unanimous in its view
that homosexuality is not a factor in increasing
the risk to children”. This is not what the church
is saying. It is trying to dislodge everything by
organising a witch-hunt against gay people,
including in seminaries in the United States. The
second conclusion is made on page 36, which
states: “The Expert Group was unanimous in its
view that the vow of celibacy contributed to the
problem of child sexual abuse in the Church”.
I honour Deputy Liz O’Donnell for her courageous
speech in the Da´ il yesterday and regret
that she was subjected to sniping partisan attacks
from other parties, including the Labour Party,
which should know better. The Deputy made an
important statement. Both Houses have a
responsibility in this matter. It has been stated
that the Catholic Church does not have a special
position in Ireland and is neither above the law
or exempt from its provisions. That is most definitely
not the case because the Houses recently
passed legislation giving the church exempt
status. Will the Minister of State please ask his
colleagues to re-examine this issue, particularly in
regard to the equality legislation, on which the
various churches approached the Government
and were granted exemptions from its operation?
As a result of this decision, decent people like me
can be fired from their jobs by the managers of
schools — priests — simply on the basis of their
sexual orientation. This is not tolerable and I am
no longer prepared to be part of a group whose
citizenship is defined as second class.
I find it astonishing that while people such as
me are considered unfit to teach children, others
who serially molest children in the most noxious
way escaped punishment, although their crimes
were known. Senator Henry is correct on this
matter as I also heard the Vincent Browne programme
last night. At least Father Twomey was
being honest when he stated his belief that the
bishops did not consider child sexual abuse a
crime. How extraordinary. On what planet were
the bishops living?
I was also astonished to read Father Twomey’s
article in The Irish Times and have written a letter
to the newspaper examining his piece because
he appears to argue that Vatican II and liberal
and progressive priests and theologians were
responsible for child abuse. If one looks at those
involved in these cases one will not find one progressive
or liberal theologian among them.
I do not wish to go through all the cases, but
they are horrendous. Boys left bleeding went to
their mothers too ashamed to explain what had
happened, after which they committed suicide; it
is awful. One priest, when hearing a young girl’s
catechism, stuck his tongue in her ear and fiddled
with her. I wonder whether those people believed
in God at all. Even if I had that impulse, I would
be terrified to act upon it, and I regard it as a
blasphemy against everything that Christianity or
any other religion would hold dear. It is a very
painful matter.
I never realised that I had encountered Fr.
Sea´n Fortune. However, I recently saw a clip
from a programme on which I had appeared —
“Prime Time” or some such thing. I was
attempting to make a dignified case for changes
to the criminal law on homosexual behaviour but
was vehemently abused by a person in a Roman
collar who, with a smirk on his face, did his very
best to put me back in my box. It was Fr. Sea´n
Fortune, who at that very time was routinely
attacking children.
We must address this. I say again to the Minister
that he should examine the equality legislation.
We have surely gone beyond the time
when decent people like me cannot be teachers.
It is, of course, a question of behaviour. If someone
displayed a gay rights poster or tried to talk
to unprepared young children about such complicated
issues, that would be wrong, and those
responsible would deserve to be reprimanded and
disciplined. However, that should not happen
merely because of people’s lifestyles.
Among what I found most shocking, which
clearly contradicts the notion that the hierarchies
were unaware of the abuse, is the fact that, in
1984 in the United States, there was the case of
Fr. Gilbert Gauthe in Lafayette, Louisiana, which
received a great deal of publicity. A committee
was established by the church and produced a
document entitled, The Problem of Sexual Molestation
by Roman Catholic Clergy. Meeting the
Problem in a Comprehensive and Responsible
Manner. The first matter on the agenda was to
take out insurance. I find it morally devastating
that the response to the knowledge that children
were routinely being attacked was to protect
material assets. That does not seem to me a very
spiritual way of handling the matter.
In the executive summary of the Ferns report,
the authors refer to Bishop Herlihy, saying that
he penalised a priest in respect of whom an allegation
had been made by transferring him to a
different post or diocese. I would not call that
penalising him, I would call it rewarding him. We
now know that when people were found to be at
this evil work, they were transferred to a place
where they happily went to play again, doing
exactly the same thing.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator’s time is
almost over.
Mr. Norris: The behaviour is inappropriate. I
have great respect for many of the traditions of
all the various churches. People say that only 4%
or 5% of abuse cases relate to the clergy, but that
is statistically anomalous, since for that to be representative
of the general population, one would
have to have 200,000 priests in the country, and
1369 Ferns Report: 10 November 2005. Statements 1370
we do not have that many. There is a particular
problem in this case, and I commend to the Minister
the courageous words of Deputy O’Donnell.
There is still a great deal of doublespeak. One
of the problems of the Roman Catholic Church
in particular is that it has both a political and a
spiritual face. It is not appropriate that the Papal
Nuncio should be the doyen of the diplomatic
corps here. Neither is it appropriate that Cardinal
Ratzinger should issue statements instructing
democratically-elected politicians what way they
should vote on certain matters concerning sexuality,
a matter about which the church has always
lied. Those many honest voices within the church
who tried to tell it the truth were ruthlessly marginalised.
I have only one more point to make.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has exceeded
the time.
Mr. Norris: One must be equal in such matters.
I do not believe that there is quite the same
degree of sexual molestation in the Anglican
Church, for example, but there is a devastating
history, which has never been examined, of violent
physical abuse of children in Protestant
schools, including those that had expensive
boarding sections. People’s lives were destroyed,
and no one ever opens his mouth, since it is
almost as if the Protestant churches were a
reserved matter, like the white deer in Mallow
deserving special protection.
Let us have this debate right across the board,
examining all such matters. Let us tell the truth
but protect all citizens. We must re-examine those
malign provisions in the equality legislation,
which go against everything to do with the
concept.

Order of Business - 10th November 2005

Order of Business – 10th November 2005

Mr. Norris: I support Senator Mooney. We
should have a debate on the Middle East. Up to
70 people may have been tragically killed in
Amman. I have stayed in that hotel, as have many
Irish delegations. Another 35 people were killed
today in Baghdad. It is clear that Bush and Blair
are on the slide. They are responsible for this.
They walked us into it but we must prepare for a
situation when a more intelligent government
may take office in both jurisdictions. I am glad
Blair was defeated in the House of Commons yesterday.
I am glad the American Republican Party
has started to lose governorship races but we
must prepare for a new regime and try to give it
some advice.
An Cathaoirleach: Briefly.
Mr. Norris: I will be as brief as I can, however,
we run to 45 minutes every day. I have a motion
on the Order Paper suggesting we recognise this
fact. It has been opposed by some people
although there is general agreement.
An Cathaoirleach: On the Order of Business.
Ms O’Rourke: That has nothing to do with us.
Mr. Norris: I could not speak more directly on
the Order of Business. This is the tenth anniversary
of the murder by the Nigerian authorities of
Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni activists
who were protesting against the environmental
devastation of the region by Shell Oil. I was a
member of the foreign affairs committee when
Des O’Malley was Chairman, and he was a good
Chairman. When we planned to visit Nigeria the
Nigerian authorities told us to apply through
Shell for a visa. In the case of the Corrib gas pipeline
and the Shell to Sea people we have again
been lickspittling. We must examine operations
such as Shell, which has devastated the environment.
While it has a cosmetic campaign of
environmentally friendly advertisements and
invests in organisations such as National Geographic,
it is a dangerous company.
I agree with Senator O’Toole about building
industry standards, which this House should
examine. To balance that, I am proud of the 700
Irish building workers and Niall Mellon who went
to South Africa at their own expense to build
houses in the townships for the South African
deprived.
Senators: Hear, hear.
Mr. Norris: We can be proud of those types of
Irish people in the building industry.

Motion on Social Welfare Benefits - 9th November 2005

Motion on Social Welfare Benefits – 9th November 2005

Mr. Norris: I welcome the Minister to the
House. I want to comment on the general topic
of the motion without going into some of the
specifics.
This is an important area. It touches people’s
real, lived experience and it is not appropriate for
any of us to engage in a polemical, partisan series
of attacks. What we must do in this House is urge
the Minister to take as constructive a role in this
area as possible and to be as helpful as possible.
I want to raise a number of issues that may,
apparently, be marginal but at the same time are
very important. When I first read the motion I
was struck by the use of the word “spouse”. I
would make a serious point to the Minister,
namely, that I abhor the way the Government
behaved with regard to a case in the past few
years that came before the Equality Tribunal
established by the Government. This case
involved a same-sex couple, one of whom felt that
he should have been entitled to the same travel
privileges as other employees’ spouses. The
Equality Tribunal found in favour of this couple
but the response of the Government was not to
move to redress the inequity or the discrimination
but to move legislatively to copperfasten it by
redefining the word “spouse”. I know the Minister
is a decent, intelligent and compassionate
man but it is not appropriate in this day and age
that people like me should be defined by legislation
into second-class citizenship of this country.
It is simply not acceptable any more and I
regret very much, as an Irish citizen and as a representative
in the Upper House of Parliament,
that this Parliament processed and passed the
only discriminatory legislative measure in this
area that I know of in any European country over
the past ten or 15 years. I hope this will be examined
again because it is no longer acceptable that
people are regarded, simply on the basis of sexual
orientation, as being second-class citizens.
The other aspect I want to examine is a very
specific area in which I know the Minister can
have an impact. I am aware that things are moving
and improving but I refer to the question of
the social welfare appeals system. I raise this
matter because I was asked during the week to
launch a report on this by the Northside Community
Law Centre. These are the most vulnerable
and marginalised people. Most of the people
who go through the appeals system have an
income of less than \15,000 a year and are therefore
on the margins. Many of them are people
who have a disability and so on.
The first point that is made in this report, and
it is a useful one, is that there is at least a perception
of lack of independence because the appeals
board is within the Department. In the course of
preparing this report an internationally comparative
survey was undertaken, which looked at the
experience of other countries, including the
United Kingdom. The point was made that where
people who are civil servants are hearing appeals
on decisions taken by their senior fellows, there
may be very high levels of integrity but there is
at least the perception of a lack of independence.
What is needed with an appeals board is guaranteed
independence and the perception of that
independence.
There were a number of practical suggestions
in the report. As some of these claimants, or
appellants, do not have the highest levels of social
skills or educational attainment they, as indeed
many of us, and I include myself in that, are easily
intimidated by the need to fill in forms, which can
be a little bewildering. The point was made that
as in some other countries, it might be possible to
examine the situation where the initial claim
could be registered either electronically or by
telephone to make it as consumer friendly as
possible.
The research groups indicated that officials of
the Department went out of their way to be courteous
and co-operative and to give as much information
as they could, without which this report
could not have been compiled. It is important to
put that on the record in case it is perceived I am
criticising for the sake of criticising but they did
make the point that figures are not always available
in areas where they would be useful. I will
give one example of that. Many of the claimants
or appellants felt that they would have had a
much better chance if they had been legally represented.
There are no figures available on this
and I urge the Minister to continue to co-operate
with these research groups because there will be
further research programmes to ascertain these
figures and to make them available. A clear view
would then emerge from these figures because
although we do not have figures within this jurisdiction,
we do have them from the neighbouring
jurisdiction, the United Kingdom, and in particular
from the North. The figures in the North
show very clearly that the success rate of appellants
under their appeal system is actually
doubled where they have legal representation.
That suggests to me that there may be a significant
number of people who have their appeals
disallowed, not because of the invalidity of their
claim but because of the lack of expertise or polish
with which that claim is presented; that could
be looked at if they had legal representation.
I understand that the situation in law is that
there is no absolute statutory requirement that
legal aid be given but, on the other hand, opinion
has been sought and has stated that whereas this
is not mandatory, at the same time if it was
decided to refuse or to deny legal aid, a court
might regard that as being ultra vires and it might
then hold that the appellant was entitled to legal
representation. In terms of fairness, decency and
justice, when a situation arises where it seems
obvious from figures from the other part of the
island albeit in the absence of our own, it seems
clear that legal representation does lead to
success.
Decisions should be published. I see the Acting
Chairman leaning forward. How much time do I
have remaining?
Acting Chairman (Mr. Dardis): The Senator
has half a minute——
Mr. Norris: I am sure it will be an expanded
half minute.
Acting Chairman: ——or 30 seconds if the
Senator prefers.
Mr. Norris: I would like another minute and 30
seconds. I hope the Minister has received a copy
of this report and that he will read it. It contains
many graphs and so on, which I do not particularly
like, but there is also the human face.
There are six case histories in the report. One, for
example, concerns a woman who applied for a
one-parent family payment. She was denied on
the grounds that she had made insufficient
attempts to get maintenance. She did not know
what that phrase meant. She felt she had done
everything she could. It turned out that they
wanted her to get a court order for maintenance
but she did not want to do that for the very
human and understandable reason that her husband
was violent. He was still in the home and
she was afraid that if she applied for a court order
she would be whacked again. It is not right that
she should be forced to do something that would
jeopardise her well-being.
Problems sometimes arise as a result of a conflict
between the claimant’s own medical opinion
and the opinion of the medical assessor. In one
case, a woman turned up three times for a medical
assessment. The first time the medical assessor
did not turn up. The second time he turned up
but he did not have the necessary equipment to
measure her disability. The third time he gave her
a cursory examination. That is not appropriate.
I ask the Acting Chairman to allow me to mention
the final case. I raised a similar case some
years ago in the Seanad successfully and the Minister
at the time was compassionate. It is about the
way in which one entitlement is subtracted from
another so that people get the minimum payment.
The case concerns disability allowance.
Acting Chairman: The Senator has taken a
flexible approach to 30 seconds.
Mr. Norris: I am just finishing. This woman was
claiming disability allowance. She then took up a
FA´ S course and was denied the disability allowance.
She was also a lone parent. Had she claimed
the lone parents allowance, which she did not, she
could have kept that payment and taken up the
FA´ S course. It seems daft to me that because she
did not claim the right one she was denied a payment
the Department had been paying.
Acting Chairman: The Senator must conclude.
Mr. Norris: It looked for a repayment of \3,000
and took away the payment, which I am glad to
say was restored on appeal. I raised the issue of
a blind student.
Acting Chairman: Senator, 30 seconds is not 2
minutes.
Mr. Norris: I am only on 25. The blind student
got a scholarship to do a PhD in history. By way
of reward they subtracted the value of the scholarship
from the blind allowance. That is mean
and penny pinching. Somebody with a disability
who has the gumption to do something for themselves
should be encouraged and supported, not
penalised.

Order of Business - 9th November 2005

Order of Business – 9th November 2005

Mr. Norris: It appears we will be allowed to
continue the debate on the Ferns report. I welcome
that decision. If we are serious about this
issue, there is something we can do. I refer to No.
23 on the Order Paper, a motion put down by
me and most of my Independent colleagues. It
requests the Government to re-examine the
exemption given to the churches from the operation
of the equality legislation. It is fine to bleat
about how heartbroken we are and say that the
church is not above the law. However, it most
definitely is above the law. In recent years, both
Houses have made it so. We can change this. This
motion simply requests the Government to reexamine
the exemption of the churches from
equality legislation. It is not tolerable that an
organisation which protected serial child abusers
is given the right to fire perfectly decent, respectable
and good teachers on the sole basis of their
sexual orientation. It is a reproach to the House’s
integrity if we do not take up this matter. I ask
that we combine the statements on the Ferns
report with the taking of this motion. The motion
does not bind the Government to any action. If
we are serious about the church not being above
the law and other citizens, the House must
request the Government to simply re-examine
the issue in light of the Ferns report.
I welcome the comments of Senator Brian
Hayes on the Shot at Dawn Campaign. I have
raised the matter several times too. The cases are
absolutely tragic. A disproportionate number of
Irish people, serving in the British army during
the First World War were shot for desertion, cowardice
or whatever it was. I have read many of
the cases. One, in particular, concerned a young
lad who was shot peremptorily because, after having
been through the thick of battle, he refused
to put on a muddied, sopping wet hat which could
have given him pneumonia. It was inhumane.
They shot the Irish pour encourager les autres. It
was a barbarous and awful matter. The New
Zealand Government got what it wanted and it
has recognised those executed by awarding them
medals posthumously. I strongly support this
campaign.
When will the ending of the groceries order be
enforced? There is something fishy about the
very phrase “below-cost selling”. What businessman
actually sells below cost? Several charities
have claimed it will do damage to the most vulnerable
elements in society. We already have two
chain stores controlling over 50% of the market.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is Senator Norris
seeking a debate on the groceries order?
Mr. Norris: Yes, but I want to explain why.
Yesterday, on the wireless, Mr. Ben Dunne said
we need to be careful about the removal of the
groceries order, as the chain stores will use it to
get gullible people into their stores. The Government
order. However, the regulations must be monitored.
If the chain stores are allowed, without
being told,——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Leader understands
the point Senator Norris is making.
Mr. Norris: I do not know how she can because
I have not made it yet. However, I know she is a
wonderfully perceptive and intelligent woman.
Ms O’Rourke: I am very clever.
Mr. Norris: Ben Dunne’s point is that if stores
are allowed to sell below cost, they must be made
do so for a reasonable period at every branch.
Ms O’Rourke: Yes.
Mr. Norris: Otherwise, they will just use it to
draw people into their stores. The House must
monitor this situation.

Order of Business - 3rd November 2005

Order of Business – 3rd November 2005

Mr. Norris: I strongly support Senator Henry’s
comments regarding so-called “extraordinary
rendition”. The phrase is sinister and it shows a
slide in linguistic terms to use such euphemisms.
It also calls into question the way in which the
American administration uses words such as “liberty”,
“freedom” and “democracy”. It has
devalued them to a point where they are absolutely
meaningless. The Leader raised this matter
on the Adjournment and she described the
Government’s response as “waffle”. I can only
agree with her. Senator Henry, the Leader and I
have asked questions about this issue and we
have been met with obfuscation.
The Gulfstream airplane passed through
Shannon Airport repeatedly and it was involved
in criminal activities such as the kidnapping and
rendering of citizens to third countries for the
purposes of torture. The excuse offered was that
an unnamed official in the US administration said
the plane was empty but that ignores the fact that
part of American policy is plausible deniability.
In other words, one should tell a lie in circumstances
where one thinks one can get away with
it. Even if the airplane was empty, that would be
no excuse for refuelling and servicing it.
Would the Government have approved of the
refuelling and servicing of empty cattle trains
which it knew would be and had been used to
transport Jewish people to Auschwitz? The principle
is exactly the same. This issue needs to be
investigated. A prima facie case can be made that
a crime has been and continues to be committed
under international law. Irish citizens have
repeatedly given this information to the police at
Shannon who have done absolutely nothing
about it. Ireland is one of a number of countries
that has been reported to a United Nations subcommittee
to be investigated for complicity in
this practice. This practice will backfire and it is
the responsibly of this Parliament to make sure
the appropriate people are made accountable.
Could the Leader arrange a debate on medical
education? I have been contacted by a number of
constituents who indicated their children had the
required high number of points to enter medical
school this year but they were disadvantaged.
They were told there were no places in medical
schools even though students from outside the
European Union with lower grades were
accepted as a money making exercise. Our first
responsibility is to provide a medical education to
our own students who have the appropriate qualifications.
I agree with Senator Morrissey. We should not
attack somebody on this side of the House who
raises intelligent questions about the Transport
21 plan. It is an important and exciting initiative
but it needs to be monitored and Senator
Morrissey is perfectly right to say so. I attended
the launch of the document.
Mr. Dooley: We saw the Senator on television.
Mr. Norris: I spoke to one of the people who
will have a central role in its implementation
about the timescale for the metro. He said the
geology of Dublin is different and unique. If such
arguments are trotted out again by senior people,
we will be in trouble.

Order of Business - 2nd November 2005

Order of Business – 2nd November 2005

Mr. Norris: I wish to show the independence of the Independents by saying I do not entirely agree with my distinguished colleague, Senator Brian Hayes. I was at the launch of Transport 21 yesterday in Dublin Castle and I found it a most invigorating experience. We had to push hard to get items such as the metro included and this House played an instrumental role. When the five Independents had the balance of power I used the opportunity to amend the Transport (Dublin Light Rail) Act. The Leader, not only as Leader but as Minister for Public Enterprise, was open-minded and clear about the metro. The part she played will be a part of history.
It is remarkable that the Government has the courage to involve itself in this very significant expenditure of €34.4 billion. We have the money and now is the time to put it into transport. It is a wise investment. Everything said about the metro suggests that it would be a negative economic indicator not to include it in the plan.
We should continue to monitor the situation regarding the transport plan. I was a little worried talking to some of the senior people after the launch. I said to one of them that the timescale was still quite extended and I asked if it could be shortened. He said the soil mechanics and the geology of Dublin are unique. I have heard this argument until I have become ill from it. I said I would bet him €1,000 that no geological structure is found under the streets of Dublin which has not been encountered in one of the thousands of cities throughout the world which have put in such infrastructure.
The other good thing about the plan was that it was not only Dublin-centred. The western rail corridor was included and railways all over the country will be opened up. It is an incremental plan and we should not be begrudging about it. As an Independent, I welcome the plan but we must monitor its implementation to make sure there is no waste. It was a good day's work.
I also wish to raise the Ferns report. I do not wish to appear to gloat, as I do not enjoy the discomfiture of the official church. It is a tragic situation, particularly for the many good, decent, young religious and the faithful. However, if we are serious about addressing the issues raised, we should examine our own record and I will table a motion in this regard. I mentioned last week that respectable, decent people, even including myself, as I was once a teacher, could be fired from a teaching post because the churches, in particular the Roman Catholic Church, were granted exclusions from the operation of equality legislation. If the past few weeks teach us anything, it is-----
Dr. Mansergh: All the churches were excluded.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris, without interruption.
Mr. Norris: I made that point but it is particularly dangerous in the case of one church, which has a track record. That is the position I would take and I would be prepared to argue it but not, I hope, in a contentious or nasty way. However, the power that raised the churches above everybody else in our society should be re-examined by Government to see if it is appropriate in this day and age.
I would also like a debate on Middle East issues. The statement by the Iranian President last week was chilling. The Iranians tried to row back on it but the President has reiterated and reinvigorated the statement.
We also need to have a debate on 1916. I may be a dissenting voice in my approach to it but it would be welcome and useful in advance of creating the new festival. We should hear all voices on this important subject.

Statements on Acute Hospital Services - 20th October 2005

Statements on Acute Hospital Services – 20th October 2005

Mr. Norris: I agree with Senator O’Brien in
complimenting the House and its political staff on
getting this debate scheduled so quickly. It does
a public service that this matter be so ventilated.
It is very useful and I am glad we are having the
debate. I wonder whether the Tanaiste, Deputy
Harney, now regrets so courageously taking on
the poisoned chalice of the Health and Children
Ministry. It certainly was a courageous decision
and confronting this task provides many headaches.
She is right in saying that the whole system
of health delivery needs to be reviewed.
The specific tragic case of Mr. Walsh is an
appalling event. One would first of all have to
send one’s sympathy to his relatives. First they
had the incidence of his illness and then they had
to stand impotently by while he was locked into
a kind of lunatic bureaucracy. I understand Mr.
Walsh was already known to suffer from a peptic
ulcer, which creates certain indications. I would
have thought he should have been put into intensive
care immediately. This kind of bleeding is
amenable to fairly simple treatment through
endoscopy whereby a tube is inserted and the
bleeding is cauterised, which is successful in 80%
of cases. Without this procedure it is almost
always fatal. It is not a major, sophisticated, complicated
complicated
or difficult operation to undertake. It
astonishes me that people stood idly by while this
man apparently bled to death.
We need to get all the facts — I understand a
report is due and we must await judgment. It
would be quite wrong to judge specific individuals
or name anybody at this point. While I do not
always agree with Senator Mansergh, he was very
wise in what he said on the Order of Business
when he brought to mind the simple parable of
the good samaritan and asked whether in these
kinds of conditions someone who found a man
bleeding to death on the side of the road would,
as they used to say about the American health
service, first feel his wallet to see if it was still
beating and then just look around and decide if
there was an inhibition here to prevent him being
helped for various reasons. Senator Brian Hayes
asked a very pertinent question in wondering
where this inhibition came from. It seems clear it
did not come from a political source. It may have
come from within the hospital. It is appalling and
astonishing that a surgeon who intervened courageously
to save life on a previous occasion was
reprimanded and chastised. This is not a good
indicator for the health service and these matters
need to be clarified.
We also need to consider the insurance
situation. We need to ensure that not only are
those medical staff, who courageously intervene,
covered and given political protection by being
supported when they take such action in the line
of their work, but also that they are not subject
of the threat of enormous financial loss. For
example, a surgeon might intervene in the case of
a person who was already beyond saving. Then,
as happens frequently in other jurisdictions, the
well-intentioned surgeon is slapped on the wrists
and taken to court. A few years ago in America
a woman collapsed beside a swimming pool with
a ruptured appendix. A doctor operated with an
ordinary domestic knife and saved her life. Her
grateful response was to sue him and receive
$750,000. We must protect medical personnel
against this kind of risk.
We should not use these matters to excoriate
particular politicians, to hold them directly or
personally responsible, or to score political
points. We should have in mind the
general welfare of the community. I
welcome that the Taoiseach in the
other House made it clear he would stand against
these kinds of personal accusations by saying: “I
will not accept that there should be political
accountability every time a person dies anywhere
in our health service.” He is right and we, as politicians,
on all sides should support him in this
matter.
I remind the House that we are perishable
goods. Death is inevitable. One hopes to
accomplish it with the minimum of trauma or suffering.
I am not referring to the situation of Mr.
Walsh which is a separate business. Sometimes
the impression is given in this country that people
believe they are entitled to live forever; that if
they get a cold the local TD is responsible; if they
have an operation the Minister is responsible;
and, if they die the Government should fall. This
is not realistic. Our health service is not as bad as
we make out. There are difficulties in delivery,
there is appalling bureaucracy, there are too
many managers and the Hanly report should be
implemented.
On this I disagree completely with Senator
Leyden who spoke from the Government side of
the House and who attacked Professor Drumm. I
say, thank God for Professor Drumm and his
clarity, forthrightness, decency and honesty in
addressing a situation. We should leave it to him
and not attempt to interfere politically in the
interests of our own little backyard. I am sickened
by what I see on all sides of this House. Every
party is involved. Every party wants to save its
own hospitals but what they mean is they want to
save their own seats. This is not about a hospital
but is a popular voting issue that calls for people
of courage. If the political leadership is not forthcoming
from the political parties, then I urge
Members not to attack people like Professor
Drumm who know what they are talking about
and have the experience. The Government
should not waste its time appointing somebody
with expertise if it will not listen to it. I agree it
is a situation which needs discussion. Professor
Drumm is perfectly correct in his view that one
cannot have five hospitals with a huge range of
expertise and duplication within a small area.
I remember the situation 30 years ago when the
Minister for Education was giving lessons about
the proposed university merger involving Trinity
College. The argument was that duplication was
not desirable and in some ways that was valid; it
is certainly valid in terms of the delivery of
hospital services. However it must be ensured
that people can be brought rapidly from one
hospital to another and that beds are available.
There should be a computerised system to show
where beds are available. There should be correct
ambulance transport and properly trained personnel
to ensure people do not die in ambulances.
I urge the Government Members not to go
against Professor Drumm and his courageous
involvement and intervention in this matter.
There is clearly something wrong in the
hospital system within this localised area. It is
astonishing that this man was denied treatment in
a hospital; it would be a different matter if he
could not get to the hospital. Senator Brian
Hayes referred to another situation where a person
was denied admission to a local hospital. The
staff of the referring hospital decided they could
not bear the repetition of having to stand by and
watch a patient bleed to death so they took it
upon themselves to telephone the senior administrator
of Cavan General Hospital who was in bed
in the early hours of the morning. He instructed
the staff to admit this man. Why did that have to
happen? What is the ethos and where is the
notion of the hippocratic oath?
I do not know if the oath was ever administered
to doctors but it is something in the popular
imagination, like the 1916 declaration about cherishing
all the children of the nation equally. The
public has the idea in its head that a medically
qualified and trained doctor will do everything
possible to keep people alive. It could be that this
oath no longer exists but the ethos should. We
should feel confident that if we are in distress or
at death’s door, at least a proper, civilised effort
will be made to spare our lives.
We are all perishable goods, our time is short
and we might as well get used to it. The best we
can hope for is reasonable treatment and an easy
passage out of this world because that day will
come. We must be realistic. Our demands on the
health service are increasing every day to totally
unrealistic dimensions, particularly in the view of
people of my generation. I remember when
people would die of an inward pain and nobody
quite knew what it was. People accepted the realities
of life.
Realistic plans must be implemented. The
Hanly report will improve the situation. If Professor
Drumm states a modified form of the
Hanly report is required then he should not be
attacked politically but should be congratulated
on telling people the truth. It may be difficult for
politicians in their own constituencies to tell the
truth but Professor Drumm should not be
attacked for doing so.