Adjournment Debate - Student enrolment in Medical Colleges - 14th December 2005

Adjournment Debate – Student Enrolment in Medical Colleges

14th December 2005

Mr. Norris: I wish to share time with Senator Henry. I welcome the Minister for Education and Science to the House. She will want to address the situation I am going to outline. She is aware of it because one of my constituents has been in touch with her about it - the disadvantage faced by Irish applicants to Irish medical schools who must compete for entry with people from outside the European Union.
A working group on undergraduate medical education was established in 2003 under Professor Patrick Fottrell. He drew some remarkable conclusions and I was unaware until I was approached about this of how disastrous is the situation. More than half the places go to people from outside the EU. A minority of medical students in this country are Irish, even though there is a yawning gap for doctors throughout the community. The group made recommendations on extra funding and I am sure the Minister has some plans for that.
We invest in medical education but not to the extent of other countries. Comparisons have been drawn with Canada, which spends two or three times more than us, and Britain. Our medical schools only remain open because they are selling medical educations to people from outside the country. This is wrong. In 2003, 516 of the 831 first year places in the Republic's medical schools were allocated to non-EU students, meaning that 83% of fee income came from overseas. The Exchequer that year provided a miserly €2.36 million in first year fees. Most people do not know this is the case. We can contrast this with the support given to veterinary medicine. Animals are subsidised to the tune of €26,604 per annum, while the subvention to medical students is only €9,000, roughly a third. This is astonishing.
This situation also acts to the disadvantage of developing countries because we are taking their students, educating them and often we must then employ them to make up our own short-fall. Almost 500 Irish students who should qualify every year are denied places they should have when their academic attainment is taken into account. The chairman of the Irish College of General Practitioners, Dr. Éamon Shanahan, says that a third of GPs will retire in the near future and they will not be replaced because the system is not flexible enough. For over 25 years we have capped the Irish and EU student entry at 305 places per year. That must stop.
I will move now from the general to the particular.

I have been in correspondence with a person whose family is well know to me. Her father was a doctor, as is her sister, and her son now wishes to enter the profession. The latter attained 570 points in his leaving certificate, an achievement which should qualify him to study medicine, but he did not gain a place. Students from outside the EU with 450 points can gain admittance to medical courses. A large number of students from outside the State come in on substantially less points than are required by Irish students, who are thereby squeezed out of the system. I cannot but believe this is wrong.
There is yet another form of discrimination in respect of those candidates who take the A-level examination. These students only take four subjects. Although they are sometimes older than most leaving certificate students, they are awarded 150 points per A grade. However, no distinction is made at A-level between an A1 and an A2. Thus, an A-level student could attain 600 points for four 85% grades whereas an Irish student would receive only 360 points for four A2s. In a roughly comparable situation, we discriminate against our own students in terms of how their academic attainment is evaluated.
Prospective Irish medical students are, therefore, disadvantaged in a number of ways. These relate to the problem with regard to the way in which scores are evaluated; the cap in numbers; and the fact that Irish students are in a minority within our medical institutions. Moreover, society is disadvantaged because we do not have sufficient doctors to cope with the requirements of the community.
I see a worried expression on the Minister's face. We know she is an excellent Minister; we have witnessed this in performance. We have seen the way she handles matters and believe she is the very person, with the type of vigorous approach she has shown in tackling other equally different problems, to set about dealing with this issue. It is a source of great regret to me that the young person to whom I referred did not attain the place he desired. He is a person from a medical background, which can be useful because such persons know the situation. He would have a good manner if he is anything like the other family members with whom I am acquainted. Having attained all that should be required in terms of points, he was nevertheless not accepted because our third level institutions are forced, in order to keep their doors open, to sell student spaces to people from outside the European Union. This is a problem the Minister inherited. It would redound to her credit if she could do something to solve it.

While I welcome what the Minister said, I regret that it probably will not be possible to do anything for this particular individual. It appears that he is going to Nottingham. It is a loss to Ireland that a good, decent and caring young man must go abroad for his education. I hope he will be able to come back and make up for some of the deficiencies in the health service here. I wish he had been able to go to Trinity College.

Private Members Motion - Care of the Elderly - 14th December 2005

Private Members Motion: Care of the Elderly – 14th December 2005

I agree with Senator O'Toole that it is regrettable these matters become a subject of contention on partisan lines and I will vote with the Government this evening. It praises itself too much but we need to encourage it because good work has been done in this budget. The Minister of State is decent and caring, which is obvious from his comment that the visits of meals on wheels providers were as important as the meals.
My old uncle ended up as a parson in rural England and used to visit elderly parishioners who were bedridden with arthritis. That human contact made an enormous difference to their lives.
I spoke to members of Age Action Ireland and they were positive about the budget. They were pleased that old age pensioners were now allowed to earn up to €100 per week without coming into the tax bracket or it affecting their pension, in contrast to the €7 at present. I welcome that significant improvement. The pension increases were in line with what Age Action Ireland asked for so it must and will congratulate the Minister.
Irish pensions, however, are only 32% of gross average earnings, less than the target of 34%. In comparison with other European countries we are not living up to our obligations to older people. The OECD average is 57% and in Luxembourg it is 102%. That is a wonderful figure though I wonder if it is correct. It suggests there is a premium for moving into the pension bracket which is a wonderful idea, and becomes even more wonderful the older I get.
The Harney package of €150 million over 2006 and 2007 for home care is very welcome and indicates a welcome change in attitude. I listened to an RTE radio programme today on a facility in which old people were given physiotherapy and training for living alone. I recognised the voice of a decent old fellow who was the father of a man I was in school with and explained how the facility enabled him to continue living alone. He had got to a point where he had difficulty dressing himself but they taught him how to do so and showed him exercises to make it physically easier. Socialisation was also a major feature of the facility and anything like that represents money well invested.
There are differences in the standard of home help between ourselves and the North, to our disadvantage. We should at least bring the service up to the level it is in Northern Ireland.
At a time when the health services are described by the Minister and others as having systemic problems and are in the middle of a re-organisation, can the Minister of State reassure us that there is sufficient bureaucratic capacity to implement these measures? I encountered a wonderful misprint at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Transport calling the Competition Authority the "Completion Authority".

That would be very useful in this State. Like an implementation board it would have the completion authority and could be sent in to complete these valuable programmes.
We have heard nothing about the creation of further public nursing homes. I want to raise an issue of particular concern in this area. The Leas Cross nursing home was a private nursing home, and such homes are inspected on a fairly regular basis. I do not believe there is the same supervision of public nursing homes. There should be because of simple and avoidable things, such as bedsores, which we need to know about and address.
I welcome what the Minister of State said. Further research is needed. A very good report on health and social services for older people found, for example, that there were discrepancies between different health board areas. We need to know why people are not taking up the services or getting the same service they did. It would be useful to look into this and I hope the Minister of State can facilitate research in this area.

University College Galway (Amendment) Bill 2005 - Second Stage - 14th December 2005

University College Galway (Amendment) Bill 2005: Second Stage.

14th December 2005

Mr. Norris: Ar an gcéad dul síos, cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. B'fhearr liom an Ghaeilge a labhairt go minic sa Seanad, ach níl an teanga agam go flúirseach.

Ms Hanafin: Go maith.

Mr. Norris: I am sorry about that because I loved Irish in school.

Acting Chairman (Dr. Henry): Go han-mhaith, Senator.

Mr. Norris: I thank the Acting Chairman for that. I had a very good Irish teacher, the late Frank Peters from Cork, and as a result of his ministrations I believe I am the only person around who is still a member of the Peig Sayers fan club and appreciation society. For people like me, it opened up a whole world that I had not suspected, the world of the old Gaelic life as survived out on the islands in the western part of the country. I found it immensely moving and remarkable.
The Minister will not be surprised to learn that the issue of the Irish language arose on the Order of Business today, partly related to this Bill, which I believe everybody has welcomed, but also in the general context of the decline of the Irish language, which I am afraid still seems to be the case. I hope it can be recused. Developments such as Teilifís na Gaelige are extremely good. I watch TG4 with the little notes of translation-----

Ms Cox: Subtitles.

Mr. Norris: Yes, the subtitles. They are fine documentaries on that station. The Minister is being sensible and practical in this Bill unlike other elements within the Government. I completely agree with Senator O'Toole that the narrow fanatical pushing of the placename issue over the heads of local people is disastrous. It is what gets people's backs up against the language. That should not be done. We need to coax and encourage people by giving them cartoons, soap operas, the news and weather forecast in Irish and thereby creating a living culture in the language.
There was a controversy over the question of Irish being made one of the official languages of the European Union and the legislation that was passed here requiring all legislation to be translated into Irish. The Taoiseach raised this matter in the other House and complained because of newspaper reports of enormous amounts - I forget whether it was €50,000, €100,000 or €500,000 - for translating some obscure European legislation, but that should not stand unchallenged on the record. I understand that the person in charge of the translation service came back with an answer which put it in a rather different context and the sum involved was comparatively moderate.
It is also important to recognise that by providing jobs we are encouraging the language, and we should do that. I am all in favour of measures, even if they are a little expensive, that provide jobs and a career pattern for people who learn and love the Irish language and subsequently they find there is a job for them within that cultural context. I approve of that and am prepared to go quite a long way, particularly in these day of State affluence, to support that.
However, this Bill addresses a situation which is the opposite of that. It does not help people to get jobs rather it inhibits them and, worse than that, it inhibits a very fine university such as University College Galway from getting the best people on its academic staff. In an international market, particularly when one is dealing with research, by making the capacity to teach through the medium of Irish a criterion, one is disastrously narrowing the market. This would be a real pity, particularly because UCG has such a distinguished record in a variety of subjects. I can think immediately of the department of oceanography there, which is remarkable and a world leader. I know that Professor William Schabas, an internationally distinguished lawyer specialising in human rights is a member of the legal section in UCG. I doubt very much if he is fluent in the Irish national tongue.
It would have been a dreadful mistake not to get the services of people such as that simply on the narrow basis that they do not know the Irish language. This involves a recognition that the Irish language has not survived completely as a current language. If somebody from the international academic community was applying for a job in another country such as France, that person would have to learn the language not only for use during the hours of teaching but to conduct telephone conversations, travel on a bus or go shopping. That does not happen here. We must be realistic and accept that, alas, Irish is not an everyday language here. Perhaps it will come back as a kind of co-partner with English and that is for what we must hope.

That was acknowledged in the Minister's opening speech, the language of which was quite careful. She concluded by saying that the Bill before the House "represents a significant step forward in modernising our education system while demonstrating an ongoing commitment" to the language. I can recognise the dying fall in such comments. It is clear from the tone of the Minister's remarks that the Government is shedding some of its attachment to the slightly fanatical view of the Irish language, which is to be welcomed. I do not think such progress necessarily represents a danger to the language.
The Minister indicated that the initiative for the changes being made in this legislation came from University College Galway, rather than being imposed by the Minister for Education and Science. It is to be welcomed as an example of real democracy. The same cannot be said about the cack-handed nonsense about placenames. The Minister, Deputy Hanafin, responded to a request from the academic community.
I know of a number of cases of really good people who were not appointed to positions at University College Galway because they did not meet the university's language requirements. It is a real pity that there is a track record of jobs being denied to people from whose work the university would have benefitted. I am delighted that UCG has developed a series of educational satellites in its hinterland. I was not aware that such work was in progress. I was particularly pleased to learn about the existence of Áras Uí Cadhain because I remember very well the late Máirtín Ó Cadhain, a remarkable man who taught Irish at Trinity College for many years. He wrote a great surrealist novel, Cré na Cille, which unfortunately has not enjoyed the wider market it would have enjoyed if it had been written in English. As a representative of Trinity College, which is one of University College Galway's sister universities, I welcome the sensitive treatment of Irish in UCG. Trinity College has a long history of cherishing the Irish language. I understand that the first established chair of Irish was in Trinity College. Bishop Bedell translated the Bible and the book of prayer, although I do not think there was a great deal of appetite for the latter. I am not sure whether there was much appetite for the Irish version of the Bible. The first font of Irish letters was developed at Trinity College. I regret that we abandoned the use of the lovely and distinctive cló-Gaelach, but I suppose that is progress. While I lament the abandonment of the cló-Gaelach, I do not doubt that the Bill before the House represents progress. It will make it easier to put in place a recruitment policy that will ensure the best talent is attracted to UCG, which is a very fine university of which we all can be proud.

Order of Business - 14th December 2005

Order of Business – 14th December 2005

Mr. Norris: I ask the Leader again if we can continue to have a debate on Iraq. It is very important, even though sometimes we must feel like a Greek chorus, lamenting impotently the folly and blindness of leaders. There is something very tragic in seeing a great country like the United States miring itself in the filth of the war in Iraq. To illustrate how important it is that we continue to speak out on the issue, a report today indicates that there was yet another secret prison in Baghdad housing 625 people, so crowded together that they had to sleep on top of one another. Some prisoners had cigarette burns on their bodies, while others had broken limbs. It is an appalling situation.
We have seen the House of Commons report of the Foreign Affairs committee which states quite clearly that US personnel have been involved in grave human rights violations, as have UK personnel, and the Government in Britain is obfuscating. Our Government is obfuscating too, with regard to the flights at Shannon. We must bear in mind what the Lord Carswell said about the use of information obtained through torture, namely that it would "...shock the conscience, abuse and degrade the proceedings and involve the state in moral defilement". We are involved in moral defilement.

An Cathaoirleach: We hope to have a debate and the Senator can raise those points then.

Mr. Norris: Thank you, a Chathaoirligh. I agree with much of what my distinguished colleague, Senator O'Toole, said on the subject of Irish. It was very refreshing to hear the ding dong, as Gaeilge, between Senators O'Toole and Ryan. It demonstrated that the language has not quite died.

Mr. Kitt: Ding, dong, Dingle.
Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my colleagues for that and regret my own inadequacy in the language. However, I believe the argument about placenames shows an arrogant fanaticism that drives people away from Irish and it should be corrected. The translation of documents into Irish can help to revive the language, if jobs are created. Jobs are where the survival of the language rests. However, we must take a balanced view. Following the Order of Business today we will deal with the University College Galway (Amendment) Bill, part of the aim of which is to remove, as a requirement for professorial posts, the speaking of Irish. That silly requirement has caused the university to miss out on very some good appointments.

Competition (Amendment) Bill 2005 - Second Stage Debate - 13th December 2005

Competition (Amendment) Bill 2005 – Second Stage Debate – 13th December 2005

Mr. Norris: I am grateful to Senator O'Toole for sharing his time with me. I agree with him on the impact that the multinationals have had on bookshops and record shops but such a situation came about a long time ago. Most will remember the local bakeries put out of business by these multiples. I remember how Dunnes Stores screwed its suppliers to the wall with "hello money", exclusive arrangements and by stringing them along by not paying their bills on time. Such is the predatory behaviour of these groups.
I do not necessarily see the removal of the groceries order as favouring competition. I also agree with Senator O'Toole about Eddie Hobbs. His show was very good entertainment but should not set Government policy. It was superficial and pandered to the appetite of the watching public.
We should listen to the likes of Ben Dunne. He may have an axe to grind because of his former intimate involvement with the company but he makes business sense. A few weeks ago he said he did not agree with abolishing the groceries order but that if it had to happen there should be two conditions. First, any below-cost selling should take place throughout a chain of stores, not just at one in Dublin but in Cork, Belfast or wherever they are. Second, it should be for a reasonable period of time, and not just bait to lure gullible shoppers in. The Minister may well respond with the Latin injunction caveat emptor but as we have already set out on a course intended to protect the customer, it does not apply.
On page 2 of his speech the Minister refers to trade representatives and business interests who trenchantly defended the order. Curiously, unless I missed them the Minister does not mention other groups which also trenchantly argued against its abolition. Is the omission because those groups are not business interests but groups with a high standing in society who look after the welfare of the most disadvantaged, such as Combat Poverty, Crosscare and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul?

Mr. Coghlan: They were dismissed.

Mr. Norris: The arguments of these groups should be taken seriously.
I will ask a light question. The Minister talks about expertise being available through one of the largest university systems in the country. As Senator Leyden put it, he should "name and shame" and let us know which university it is. I presume it is UCD.

Mr. Martin: It was Senator Coghlan but we will discuss it later. It was not UCD.

Mr. Norris: Apparently, we have the benefit of the expertise of universities.
The Minister goes on to say the groceries order does not and never has operated as a ban on below-cost selling, which may well be true. He also makes interesting points about the difference between invoice price and cost price, which leads me to the conclusion that the specific practice of below-cost selling should be prohibited. The very phrase is complete nonsense. What reasonable business will sell things below cost? It cannot make money in that way so it is only a bait, a lure.
Something should be done about predatory pricing. The Minister said that during the public consultation process no-one in the trade was prepared to reveal the full extent of such discounts and that this clearly underlined the secretive way in which such discounts operated and the critical way in which they are regarded by the trade. In the absence of that information how did the Minister evaluate the position? Is it not curious and a little worrying that the multiples withheld this information from the public?
The Minister talks about stores like Spar and Centra which are a halfway house between the local shop and the multiples. He then said the report clearly demonstrated that the statistics of ghost-town Britain, showing that 70% of towns in the UK have no local shop, had no basis in fact. Instead, he says, access to groceries in the UK is excellent and nearly 90% of rural households in England live within 4 km of a petrol station, most of which have a convenience store attached.

Bravo. What about people who do not have a car? What about the real poor, not just the middle classes? The Minister should be aware of this because a detailed, sophisticated argument was made by Crosscare, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and Combat Poverty that people on the most critical margin, the most disadvantaged, would not have their needs met by this easy solution where we say there is a garage forecourt within 4 km of most rural housing.
The Minister then referred to dominant undertakings but he does not spell out what they are. They must be very dominant to be taken into account in this legislation because the Competition Authority has decided that a company at a national level must have more than 35% of the market to be dominant and that a local level a company with a market share of 65% is not dominant. Given that none of the national retailers in Ireland have a market share at a national level in excess of 27% or a local market share of more than 65%, they can do what they like, they are not regarded as dominant. What does dominant mean? If a retailer can have 65% in a certain area, surely common sense suggests this is dominant. On the basis this dominance idea is worked out, Tesco and Dunnes could take up another 40% of the market without becoming dominant. That is daft. Also, there has not been a single case taken against predatory pricing since 1991. We should address this because predatory pricing certainly exists.
Combat Poverty, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and Crosscare in their submission to the Minister on the groceries order pointed out the planning background, where infrastructural deficits impact disproportionately on poorer people who rely on often inadequate public transport: "We write this submission to signal our belief that repealing the groceries order will have, at best, very little impact on the food-purchasing patterns, and, by extension, the food-consumption habits, of disadvantaged people living in poorly resourced locations where the type of food outlet available determines the availability and cost of food". Here I agree with Senator O'Toole, I would be surprised if these large sums of money make their way back into people's wallets, as suggested by Mr. Hobbs. The report continues: "It has been observed in several domestic studies of the groceries market in Ireland that the larger multiples tend not to enter many regional or other similarly undesirable areas where the catchment market in the surrounding areas is deemed insufficient to justify their entry". In other words, they cherry pick, and some areas of the country will not have one of the large groups, leaving the garage forecourt as the only option for the purchaser.
The agencies go on to state:
For households in areas that are considered undesirable to enter by larger multiples, transport to and from supermarket/multiples – often located in out-of-town sites with poor or no public transport – is often not feasible. They are forced by their circumstances to shop close to their homes, usually in the aforementioned 'symbol' category of retail outlets or the garage forecourt type of outlet where healthy food is more expensive and less available.
This has an impact not just on the domestic economy of the poorest people but also on their dietary habits. The document asserts:
The loss of competitiveness that would most likely arise among independent shop-owners following the repeal of the groceries order could have very detrimental effects as regards accessibility of food for households in poorer and/or rural areas which larger multiples may find less desirable to enter. Thus, the groceries order will not be welfare-improving to wider society if it leads to a reduction in the (already restricted) options currently available for households in low-income and low-density areas.
This is the view of Combat Poverty. It makes the point that the forecourts stock fat enriched foods, the least healthy of all.

Mr. Martin: The garage forecourts have grown with the groceries order. That is the point.

Mr. Norris: The order must be examined but differently from the Minister's approach. I am a discordant voice in this; it is not good for the consumer. If it is, it is good for the middle classes, who are over-represented in this House. We must take into consideration the views of those organisations in our society that seek to protect the most vulnerable. I am not convinced this legislation will do that.

Order of Business - 13th December 2005

Order of Business – 13th December 2005

Mr. Norris: I support the calls for the Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to come to the House and make a statement. We should have a debate on the matter, at the very least. However, I find myself in some disagreement with my colleague and friend, Senator Brian Hayes. I do not think the Connolly response is more important than the issues facing the Minister. Mr. Connolly is a single individual and I do not think he should be forced into a libel court. That is a choice he can make, if he wishes, but I do not agree with the argument that if someone makes an allegation against an individual, he or she must go to the libel court.
There are issues of principle at stake. I am worried because I detect what I would call the "Eileen Flynn syndrome" whereby the Minister does not like the political background, political choices or the acquaintances of a certain individual and therefore the law does not operate to protect that individual's rights. The law should do so and I find it extraordinary that the Minister used parliamentary privilege in the way he did, in particular his use of a written reply, where he could not be interrupted by the Ceann Comhairle and told to stop because he was naming people outside the House.
I remind Senators that this is the Minister who introduced penalties of up to five years in prison for gardaí who leaked information to journalists. The Minister said, in that context, "I am not supposed to just throw out into the public domain facts which haven't been proven in court about people." What has changed to enable him to completely reverse this position and to do precisely what he said he should not do?
We are entitled to an explanation because the chairman of the Centre for Public Inquiry, Mr. Justice Flood, has argued that the Minister's action amounts to a drumhead court martial. In other words, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has established himself as judge and jury. Professor Walsh has argued that the question of undermining the Constitution arises in this scenario. This is a very serious and regrettable situation.
One final question, which should be asked -----

An Cathaoirleach: Senator, we cannot discuss the matter now. We will have a debate -----

Mr. Norris: Will the Leader ask the Minister, if he is not able to come to the House, to answer two specific questions?

The Minister indicated that democracy was under threat and there was a threat to public safety. If he is not able to come to the House I ask the Leader to inquire of him as to the nature of that threat to the State. The Minister has not spelt that out. In what manner was it properly addressed by his action? We are entitled to know.

I ask the Leader to continue the series of debates on Iraq. Cindy Sheehan, whose son
was killed in Iraq, is outside the gates of this building today. We discussed the
aeroplanes that passed through Shannon Airport and she told me she would personally
sink a hatchet into any aeroplane that she thought might be carrying a boy like her son
off to be murdered by George Bush. We must bear that in mind while we press for
information on the aeroplanes that still stop at Shannon Airport.

Order of Business - 8th December 2005

Order of Business – 8th December 2005

Mr. Norris: I disagree with my distinguished colleague, Senator Brian Hayes, on the notion that no one should set up an inquiry except the Government. It is quite possible for people to establish an inquiry, and for the public to decide.
I am somewhat concerned at moves on the part of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, in the other House, since someone has been named. I understood that the tradition of Parliament was that one did not name those who do not have an opportunity to defend themselves in this forum. I found replies on the radio by the person in question evasive and unsatisfactory. However, it was also suggested on several radio stations that the Minister had contacted what were effectively his employers, Atlantic Philanthropies, and made material from Garda sources available to them. That worries me, since, despite my deep suspicions regarding the Colombia three and all the ramifications, I am also concerned that proper procedures be followed on the basis that people are innocent until proven guilty.
Perhaps I might return to the question of Iraq. I hope that next week we will continue with the work in which the Leader has engaged, which is very important and serious. Unfortunately, it has been made clear by Lord Steyn, a former law lord who has just retired from that very senior position in Britain, that because members of the Government may well have been aware of what was going on in Britain, they could themselves be liable for prosecution in the International Criminal Court for war crimes. That worries me, since in this country there seems to be a deliberate policy of obfuscation. The report that we received yesterday from the British foreign affairs committee investigating the matter directly accuses the British Government of obfuscation and of ignoring what it categorically describes as a serious international crime committed by the US authorities.
Yesterday, however, the Taoiseach said that he must accept Condoleezza Rice's statement. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, said in Washington that he totally accepted it. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, incorrectly stated that Ireland had no power to board those aeroplanes. It is time that we ended this three monkeys attitude whereby one hears, sees and speaks no evil. It was said openly in this House on several occasions that the people in question, including President Bush, had lied. I find it astonishing that for a minor, consensual sexual indiscretion Mr. Clinton was impeached. Now we have a man embarking on the Third World War, and yet they are not impeaching Mr. Bush in the United States.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator, we cannot have a lengthy statement.

Mr. Norris: I very much welcome and look forward to a strong and robust inquiry, properly established by this House.

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs discussion of Motion laid down by Senator Norris - 6th December 2005

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs:
6th December 2005
Foreign Conflicts: Motion.

Chairman: A motion on recent events in Iraq has been submitted by Senator Norris and Deputy Michael D. Higgins. I call on Senator Norris to move the motion.

Senator Norris: I move:
That the foreign affairs committee, in the light of recent revelations concerning the use of white phosphorus and the disclosure of widespread and severe torture in Iraq, calls for the establishment of an international inquiry into:
(a) the attack by US forces on Fallujah, and
(b) the use of torture against both military and civilian personnel in Iraq.

Chairman: An amendment to the motion has been submitted by Deputy Mulcahy. I call on Deputy Mulcahy to move the amendment.

Deputy Mulcahy: I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and to substitute the following:
"the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs
(a) notes with concern the reports of the use of white phosphorus by elements of the multinational force currently in Iraq pursuant to UN Security Council resolutions;
(b) condemns any use of chemical weapons in Iraq or elsewhere and the use of any conventional weapons in a manner which is contrary to international law;
(c) notes the intention of the Government of Iraq to investigate conditions of detention following the recent deeply disturbing discovery of 170 detainees in an Interior Ministry building and supports the call by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that, in light of the apparently systematic nature and magnitude of the problems with the system of detention, the Iraqi authorities should consider calling for an international inquiry;
(d) calls for full investigation of all allegations of torture, ill-treatment and other abuses of human rights in Iraq;
(e) condemns the indiscriminate use of violence against civilians and government officials in Iraq which has caused such terrible suffering in recent months and is aimed at creating further divisions between the communities in Iraq;
(f) welcomes the outcome of the 15 October referendum which approved the new constitution for Iraq and looks forward to the democratic elections on 15 December for a sovereign Iraqi Assembly and Government;
(g) notes the unanimous adoption of Security Council Resolution 1637 on 8 November 2005 which, responding to a request from the Government of Iraq, reaffirmed the authorisation for the multinational force and decided to extend its mandate until 31 December 2006;
(h) expresses the hope that sufficient progress will be made in the political transition of Iraq to enable the democratically elected, sovereign government to assume full responsibility for security and stability in its country at the earliest possible date;
(i) expresses the hope that in the near future all UN authorised forces in Iraq will be in a position to leave Iraq and leave the running of Iraq to the sovereign people of Iraq as represented by their democratically elected politicians.

Chairman: In accordance with procedure, the committee is obliged to dispose of the amendment first. I will, therefore, call on Deputy Mulcahy to speak to the amendment. Thereafter, the debate may deal with the substance of both the motion and the amendment. At the conclusion of the debate the amendment will be decided by one question put to the committee.

Deputy Mulcahy: I thank Deputy Higgins and Senator Norris for tabling the motion which is extremely timely. It is important not just for Ireland but for the international community that there be an extensive debate on Iraq. Of course, the origins of the intervention are controversial. Some say they date from a few years ago, others that they date from the end of the first Iraqi war and the war reparations and alleged non-access to weapons facilities and so forth arising from it, but there is no need to repeat the arguments here.
From the public's perspective, this issue affects us in Ireland in two ways. First - quite legitimately - there is the issue of which aircraft are going through and what is happening at Shannon Airport. Again, there are two legitimate sides to the argument. Second, there is the issue of what is happening in Iraq, the terrible attacks and the killing of civilians-----

Senator Norris: By the forces.

Deputy Mulcahy: This is a matter of concern to everyone. On any objective reading, this is a year in which there has been substantial progress in Iraq. First, democratic elections were held on 30 January. The transitional Iraqi Government under Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafaari was formed in May. It included representatives of all the major groups in the assembly, including six members from the Sunni community. After this there was a lengthy negotiating process in the assembly which resulted in the adoption of a draft constitution at the end of August which was approved in a national referendum on 15 October by a margin of 79% to 21%. There is, however, a continuing concern about the lack of engagement by elements or parts of the Sunni community in the constitutional process. Fresh elections are due to take place on 15 December and one of the Sunni parties intends to participate. For those who want a free, independent, sovereign Iraq or any non-Iraqi occupying forces in Iraq, this is a year in which there has been significant progress.
The failure of the mandated forces in Iraq to set a deadline for their withdrawal is somewhat disappointing. At this stage, given the level of political progress to date, it would not be unreasonable for those forces to state a deadline of one or two years could be met in all circumstances. There has been much progress in training the Iraqi army but, unfortunately, there does not appear to have been the same degree of progress in training the Iraqi police force.
[Deputy Mulcahy]
It is correct that on Sunday, 13 November, US forces searched an Iraqi Interior Ministry interrogation centre in Baghdad and found approximately 170 prisoners, at least some of whom appeared to have been severely beaten, while others were under-nourished. The prisoners were Sunni Iraqis and foreign nationals who had been detained as suspected insurgents. The committee must express its abhorrence of torture in any circumstances. The amendment follows through on this. It is not a question of dictating a standard of behaviour in a civilised society from our cosy desks hundreds of thousands of miles away from Iraq. In a widely broadcast series of interviews yesterday former President Mary Robinson made it clear that torture could not be an ambiguous concept that wavered from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but must be solidly condemned wherever found.
Iraq's Interior Minister has admitted that abuse took place but only in a small number of cases and will not be tolerated. The media reports and photographs have been a serious setback for the domestic and international image of the new Iraqi authorities and played into the hands of elements of the Sunni community which oppose a new constitutional framework for a democratic Iraq. The UN Human Rights Commissioner, Louise Arbor, has suggested that in view of the damage done Iraq should consider asking for an international inquiry to be established to examine the treatment of detainees. It is important that Iraq calls for such an inquiry into the abuse of detainees. Here the amendment respectfully differs from the motion.
I wish to refer to specific items included in the motion and the amendment. One of my problems with the motion is the phrase "the disclosure of widespread and severe torture in Iraq". While I accept there has been torture, I am not sure it has been widespread. Perhaps Deputy Higgins and Senator Norris might inform us on the issue.
I also have a problem with the section that "calls for the establishment of an international inquiry into (a) the attack by US forces on Fallujah and (b) the use of torture against both military and civilian personnel in Iraq". An international inquiry, the impetus for which comes from outside Iraq, would not be good at this stage. Given the progress made in 2005 in constitutional development, such an inquiry should be called for from within Iraq. The time has come for less interference in its affairs and more development of its structures and society.
My amendment reads:
(a) notes with concern the reports of the use of white phosphorous by elements of the multinational force currently in Iraq pursuant to UN Security Council resolutions;
(b) condemns any use of chemical weapons in Iraq or elsewhere and the use of any conventional weapons in a manner which is contrary to international law [I hope my colleagues will see this as very strong, plain and forthrigh];
(c) notes the intention of the Government of Iraq to investigate conditions of detention following the recent deeply disturbing discovery of 170 detainees in an Interior Ministry building and supports the call by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that, in light of the apparently systematic nature and magnitude of the problems with the system of detention, the Iraqi authorities should consider calling for an international inquiry [I again stress that it should be the Iraqi authorities, supported by us, which should call for an international inquiry];
(d) calls for full investigation of all allegations of torture, ill-treatment and other abuses of human rights in Iraq;
(e) condemns the indiscriminate use of violence against civilians and government officials in Iraq which has caused such terrible suffering in recent months and is aimed at creating further divisions between the communities in Iraq [Here I refer to the recent bombings];
(f) welcomes the outcome of the 15 October referendum which approved the new constitution for Iraq and looks forward to the democratic elections on 15 December for a sovereign Iraqi Assembly and Government [Nobody could object to this];
(g) notes the unanimous adoption of Security Council Resolution 1637 on 8 November 2005 which, responding to a request from the Government of Iraq, reaffirmed the authorisation for the multinational force and decided to extend its mandate until 31 December 2006 [It is important that the Security Council was responding to a request from the Government of Iraq as constituted stemming from the democratic elections held on 30 November];
(h) expresses the hope that sufficient progress will be made in the political transition of Iraq to enable the democratically elected, sovereign government to assume full responsibility for security and stability in its country at the earliest possible date;
(i) expresses the hope that in the near future all UN authorised forces in Iraq will be in a position to leave Iraq and leave the running of Iraq to the sovereign people of Iraq as represented by their democratically elected politicians.
I admit that the last paragraph is aspirational. I hope my amendment adds to motion and elaborates on the motion rather than overriding it. Its tone is meant to emphasise the point that significant progress has been made in Iraq, that there has been torture which has been condemned, that there has been the illegal use of chemical weapons which is condemned by the international community, and that in the near future we would like to see all foreign forces leave Iraq, leaving its people to decide the country's destiny. I strongly commend the amendments to my colleagues and the Chairman.

Senator Norris: I seek the Chairman's assistance on a technical matter. Is it usual practice for a motion such as this to be referred either by the Chairman or committee staff to the Department of Foreign Affairs for comment or amendment?

Chairman: The normal procedure is to request briefing material from the Department of Foreign Affairs. That material has been circulated to members. That is all we had to do.

Senator Norris: Was my motion forwarded to Iveagh House for a briefing on the issue?

Chairman: Yes, where it is relevant to do so. The briefing material which includes background notes has been circulated to members.
Senator Norris: That is welcome. I ask the question because this committee is valuable as it is non-partisan and its members assess issues on their merits, not by direction from Iveagh House. I was involved with Deputy Michael D. Higgins in establishing the first Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs which came about because we wanted foreign affairs policy to be accountable to the people. The committee acted as a ginger group. The Government wisely felt that, whatever the drawbacks in having a committee with members from all parties duly selected, it was better than one run by Deputy Michael Higgins and me. One could not tell in which direction such a committee would go. I am sure Deputy Mulcahy will agree that a good facet of this committee is that it has been non-partisan.
The motion was forwarded to the committee some time ago. Due to an error, for which this committee has no responsibility, it was sent initially to the Sub-Committee on Human Rights. It has since been put on the long finger in a number of ways. I tabled a similar motion in the Seanad. I am grateful to Deputy Mulcahy for making the Shannon Airport issue part of this discussion, particularly its use for the "Guantanamo Express" and rendering people for the purposes of torture. I intend to briefly skirt around the issue raised by the Deputy.

Chairman: Is the Senator coming to the motion in his name?

Senator Norris: Yes.

Chairman: While the joint committee has always been non-partisan, as the Senator has noted, it has also been informed. On every issue it receives background notes and updated information from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Senator Norris: That is very helpful.

Chairman: That is all that is involved.

Senator Norris: I do not think it is quite so.

Deputy M. Higgins: I can clarify that matter.

Senator Norris: The amendment originated from the Department, as I am sure Deputy Mulcahy will confirm.

Chairman: The Senator will have a chance to reply. He is making an allegation, about which I wish to be clear. Any member is entitled, in his or her own right, to table an amendment. The Chair has not been involved in the preparation of an amendment.

Senator Norris: I have no quarrel with the Chairman who I am sure will withdraw the inaccurate statement that I have made an allegation; asking a question is not the same as making an allegation. I asked a question and have received a reply from the Chair. It was not an allegation.

Chairman: I am pleased to hear it. The normal procedure was followed and the motion taken as quickly as it could have been. To facilitate this debate we asked members to come here at 1 p.m. knowing that this would be difficult for some and that some would have to stay late.

Senator Norris: Absolutely. I was asked if I would facilitate the committee by putting back the debate for a few weeks. I stated I would not. That is why we are meeting at this time.

Chairman: I wish to be clear about the information provided.

Senator Norris: I was asked if the debate on the motion could be postponed and stated in reply that I would prefer if it was taken today.

Chairman: As far as the secretariat is concerned, the normal information was requested.

Senator Norris: That is clarification to a certain degree. I understand Deputy Mulcahy will clarify the matter further later.
Paragraph (a) of the amendment is inaccurate and I am sure Deputy Mulcahy will not mind if it is amended. It reads: "...by elements of the multinational force currently in Iraq pursuant to UN Security Council Resolutions". The Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, described the war as illegal. It was also described as such by the Leader of Seanad Éireann. The forces are now in Iraq as a result of a retrospective motion; they are not in the country pursuant to a UN resolution. This inaccurate statement should be withdrawn.
Paragraph (b) deals with the general condemnation of the use of chemical weapons anywhere. This is a bland point and my problem with it is that the focus is blurred. I am discussing a specific series of actions which greatly concerns many, including people in America who include former President Jimmy Carter. I say this because I do not want anybody to suggest we are anti-American. If former President Carter can state these actions are not indicative of the America he knew, with torture openly espoused, endorsed and used, and that rendition presents a problem, we would be pusillanimous if we did not take this view.
Apart from paragraphs (a) and (b), the amendment is taken from the amendment tabled to the motion in my name during Private Members' Business in the Seanad.

Deputy Mulcahy: Paragraph (i) is different.

Chairman: The Deputy will have an opportunity to reply.

Senator Norris: There may be one change, but six of the nine paragraphs are identical to the amendment tabled to the relevant motion during Private Members' time in the Seanad. I make this point because when the issue was briefly discussed previously, there was an opportunity before the discussion was terminated for Fianna Fáil Members to indicate their preference. They indicated they had no problem with the motion. When it was discussed, individual Members, independent of an direction from Iveagh House or the Minister, had no problem with it.
Deputy Mulcahy spoke about getting Iraqi authorities, such as they are, to inquire about this issue. There would be considerable difficulties with this. The Deputy himself has stated he would be concerned if the behaviour was considered to be general. The report on the incident in the basement of the Iraqi building was accepted. The responsible Iraqi Minister indicated that she found it impossible to investigate such matters, that such behaviour was systemic. If the record of Seanad Éireann is consulted, one will see I provided very considerable evidence of widespread torture in Iraq and its systemic nature. When the Minister responsible states she is being blocked and stymied at every avenue and cannot properly investigate, although she is aware of widespread torture, it would be foolish to expect those in charge of a system under which torture is widespread to investigate themselves. This vitiates a cardinal principle of law, that an accused person does not stand in judgment of himself or herself. The authorities in Iraq stand accused of, at least, tolerating this torture and being involved in it in many cases. This is not just waterboarding, which Vice President Cheney appears to believe is legitimate. This is a practice, developed by the Gestapo, whereby people are drowned, medically resuscitated with their lungs bursting and then interrogated. Apparently, according to Mr. Cheney, this is tolerable. The practices engaged in are even worse than this and people have died. In the motion I call for an international and, therefore, independent investigation into the use of white phosphorus, which has been denied.
Three weeks ago I spoke to Mr. Harry Cohen, MP, who showed me correspondence on the matter which he discussed with me. He had asked about the use of white phosphorus and been given an inaccurate reply by a British Minister, Mr. Adam Ingram, who had been lied to by the United States authorities at the highest level, as he had to acknowledge in a letter I have seen. The use of white phosphorus was denied categorically and Mr. Ingram had to apologise on the basis that he had misled the House of Commons because he had not been told the truth.
There is also the question of the attack on Fallujah and the damage and injury to civilians. Deputy Mulcahy expressed, quite correctly, his abhorrence and discusses in the amendment the attacks on civilians which are obviously carried out by militants.
However, I am highlighting the actions of sovereign governments and the so-called coalition forces, their responsibility for the deaths of 100,000 civilians and their deliberate attempt to conceal this fact. Reports in The New York Times, which can hardly be described as anti-American, indicate that the attack on the hospital aimed to stop leaks about the number of civilian casualties. It is worrying when governments which claim to defend our ethos become involved in these practices and attempt to prevent information about them leaking out. Making these allegations against people who are intimately connected with this country is a serious and painful matter. Many of us have friends and relations in the US so we are part of its system and share many values with it. However, these values have been betrayed and traduced and if we are afraid to say so, we have surrendered the pass.
I will not linger as I wish to leave time for my colleagues who have important things to say. I accept that section (a) of the amendment represents a welcome advance, for which I am grateful to Deputy Mulcahy. Most of the remaining parts of the amendment come from a document that originated in the Department of Foreign Affairs. I am concerned about this because we should make up our own minds on the matter here.
Deputy Mulcahy raised the issue of Shannon Airport, which is not mentioned in the motion but which I will continue to revisit in the Seanad. The issue is very clear and the argument does not have two sides. One of the Gulfstream 5 jets that landed at Shannon Airport has been used for no other purpose than rendition flights. Rendition flights have been condemned by a report from the Swedish parliament because of the kidnap of two people in Stockholm Airport who were substantially rendered to Egypt where they were tortured.
Before she left the US, the US Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, stated that the US expected its allies to believe it. Why should they? There has been a consistent pattern of lies, denials and eventual acceptance that particular allegations are true. A parliamentary committee found that this Gulfstream 5 jet was used for rendition flights. Airplanes that regularly land at Shannon Airport have been used for the filthy purpose of extraordinary rendition - one should note the euphemism - and this Government is liable under international criminal law for this. This is the advice given to a committee of the House of Commons in the UK. This committee had asked whether it would cause a legal problem if such an airplane merely refuelled at a UK airport and the official reply was that such a practice would make the UK government complicit in an international crime. This is what we are dealing with and this is why I am so grateful to Deputy Mulcahy for raising this issue. I will pursue this matter in the Seanad.
I welcome the excellent contribution of Deputy Mulcahy but am concerned that we should not lose or blur the focus. I welcome section (a) of the amendment but wonder whether it would be possible for this committee to come up with a composite motion which would cater for both sides. It is important for us to look at the way in which the Department of Foreign Affairs attempts to control the business of this committee.

Deputy M. Higgins: I wrote an article in 1982 for Studies which traced the history of our attempts to found a foreign affairs committee. The former Senator, James Dooge, was the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the time. In the article, I quoted from an interesting debate in the Seanad. Senator Dooge had attended a conference of the speakers of the Houses of Parliament and he quoted with approval the views of an individual named Dr. Steerkamp who believed that foreign policy should be left to the diplomats unless members of the public with egalitarian and moralistic tendencies would become involved. The Fianna Fáil Party in the Seanad, which had promised to support my resolution, decided to abstain; Fine Gael voted against it and the Labour Party and the university Senators both voted for it. Approximately 23 Senators abstained, 21 Senators voted against the proposal and 12 Senators voted for it. I recorded all of this to demonstrate the difficulties involved in establishing a foreign affairs committee that would operate at a distance from the mandarins of the day. I am glad I produced a written record in light of the information given by Senator Norris.
I wish to clarify some points in this important motion. The fundamental point is that it is in everyone's interest to defend international law. To this end, I welcome the speech given by Deputy Mulcahy. International law is under serious threat in a number of circumstances. I do not wish to be pedantic but I must correct section (b) of the amendment. White phosphorous is not classed as a chemical weapon in the UN Chemical Weapons Convention. This is enormously important because all signatories to the convention automatically signed up against the use of chemical weapons in any circumstances. White phosphorous is referred to as an incendiary weapon. I will not go into the gruesome details as to whether a person implodes gradually or whether his or her flesh is burned off following exposure to white phosphorous. I understand that the Third Protocol to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons has not been signed by the US, which is, therefore, outside the discipline of the convention.
One then turns to how this matter has been handled. The use of an incendiary weapon in conditions where civilians may be present is a clear breach of the convention. States have a clear and irrevocable obligation to ensure that where incendiary weapons such as white phosphorous, are used, there is no possibility of civilians being present. Matters were not helped by the different forms of denial. It was stated that the US did not own white phosphorous, that it did not use it, that white phosphorous was used for the illumination of a point of conflict and, after news leaks occurred, that white phosphorous was only used against combatants.
There were breaches in every circumstance protected explicitly by the convention. There is no doubt that civilians were killed in the attack on Fallujah and that white phosphorous was not used simply to illuminate a conflict zone but, rather, was used against enemy combatants. We must conclude that there is a serious question mark over conditions of trust, which leads on to the second part of the motion.
There has been a fundamental change with regard to the use of torture since we put down the motion.


I constantly ask when Ireland will sign the optional protocol against torture which would create the capacity for an external body to visit us. The convention requires us not only not to be involved in torture but under the protocol, which we have not signed, there is a positive obligation not to assist torture in any way and to work to prevent it taking place anywhere. Even though we have not signed that, we have serious obligations under international law.
I am talking about a United Nations convention against torture and two European conventions for which the Council of Europe is responsible, namely the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Two fundamental changes are suggested here. There is the suggestion of those surrounding the US Vice-President Cheney that what is taking place is something less than torture. Deputy Mulcahy adverted to this too. We agree on all sides on that point. The European Convention is not just against torture, however narrowly defined, but against "inhuman or degrading treatment". We heard en passant in both of the contributions so far, that the Council of Europe monitors its conventions through the committee appointed. The Government, in reply to questions to different Ministers, said the Council of Europe's monitoring committee has contacted it. The monitoring committee may seek assurances, for example, on the use of the CIA planes in Shannon.
How can we co-operate fully with the monitoring committee from the Council of Europe if we never inspect what is on the plane or seek to discover the purpose of the planes landing and taking off? Even the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, said this last night on television. This raises another fundamental question, namely, where one stands on the general concept, taking into account what I have already said, of "extraordinary rendition" as an instrument of international security?
We can leave that issue aside for the moment because we will be able to pursue it next week in questions to the Department of Foreign Affairs. Even there is no one on the plane when it lands in Shannon, if we allow ourselves to become part of a flight plan that lends itself to extraordinary rendition we inescapably place ourselves within the ambit of that illegal act.
Deputy Mulcahy referred to the comment of the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, that if one starts redefining torture or narrowing its definition and so forth surely one damages one's acceptability and trust in respect of the other matter. This is akin to the question of the use of white phosphorus in certain circumstances.
I am not an international lawyer but I read the texts. It was my business as a political scientist to know something about them. I know what a positive obligation is. How can positive obligation be defined as other than seeing that one is able to give something based on fact rather than the acceptance of a verbal assurance from sources that have systematically damaged their credibility? In this way they have politicised human rights law such that it has become a kind of project.
In respect of the amendment before us, I have no difficulty in condemning the use of chemical weapons. They are prohibited absolutely. Incendiary weapons perhaps need to be added. They are outside the disciplines suggested in the international conventions. I have dealt with the issue covered in (d). I would like to retain the usage of the Council of Europe in respect of allegations of torture, namely "torture, inhuman or degrading treatment". We are talking about an appalling activity.
I know something about torture through cases with which I dealt 20 years ago when techniques of torture were moved from Vietnam to Chile under General Pinochet. Torture techniques were exported. In all these cases I prefer the wider usage of "torture, inhuman or degrading treatment".
In addition to (e), while I respect Deputy Mulcahy's views, and he has been at pains to suggest how much he respects mine, he will excuse me if I differ with him on the referendum on 15 October. Two states in which the predominant population is Sunni voted against the constitution in insufficient numbers to be a blocking mechanism. It is possible that in December, after the elections, this issue will be revisited which may bring about some inclusion of the Sunni population.
It is important to realise there was a fundamental point at stake, which was at the root of the constitutional consultation. The Sunni objection is not that of insurgents but for a unitary state. The issue upon which the debate in the two states took place was federalism versus the unitary Iraq.
In respect of (g) and the circumstances of resolution 1637, these resolutions are of their time. The achievement of the vote at the United Nations was based on the then current circumstances. There has been no suggestion that one can reach back and use it as a rationalisation of the original actions which took place without any UN Security Council mandate. That creates the practical problem for international human rights observers of how to define when forces are operating under the new mandate, and when they are residual to the illegal invasion. In what circumstances have people who invaded illegally without any mandate made themselves right ex post facto by some kind of resolution?
That is not what happened and that is not the purpose of the original motion which immediately preceded the invasion, resolution 1441. When that was announced to the Dáil and the Seanad the Taoiseach referred to it as a motion that achieved peace. Within weeks it was used as a pretext for invasion by others who wanted to construe it differently. That is history, but these resolutions as referred to do not put an action right retrospectively.
In respect of the expressed hope I do not want the endless conflict in Iraq to continue or there to be any further loss of life on any side. I have visited Iraq four times, before 1991, during the sanctions, before this war, and in times when it was stable under Saddam's oppressive rule. I certainly share the aspiration for the future of Iraq but there is a long way to go in achieving that. One cannot slide away from international obligations in law.

[Deputy M. Higgins]
It is a sad day if a country that claims it has friendly relations with another is in danger of losing that friendship if it asks a simple question. Our questions must be answered to show us international law is not being broken. How can such a request be regarded as a non-friendly act?
There is overwhelming support among the public to have these questions answered factually. In the case of Shannon Airport, they can only be answered by way of an examination of what is taking place on aeroplanes. In the case of torture, they will only be answered when torture is redefined to include degrading and inhuman treatment of prisoners and so forth but that will only come about when we make clear demands as a state that wants to see international law upheld. It is our sole protection. Small countries benefit from international law, even more so than large powers.

Deputy Allen: It is a pity there is a division on the motion. On the last occasion when there was an attempt to move it I objected to it being taken without notice on the day and asked that it be put back on the agenda. There was support from all sides for it. At the time the question was about the procedures adopted. I am sorry I did not ignore them and allow the motion to be taken as it would have received unanimous support. I now regret the change of mind on the part of Government members. I thought we could be adult enough to deal with this tragic and serious issue and not divide on it. However, these are the facts of political life.
There is no doubt white phosphorus was used in Iraq. As a chemical technologist, I am familiar with using it in laboratory conditions and understand the horrific effect it can have on a person's body. If one gets it on one's hand, the skin has to be excised to get rid of it. If it comes in contact with human beings in a war, it is kaput for them. From the evidence available, it is obvious it was used in the November 2004 attack on Falluja. Darrin Mortenson, a reporter embedded with US marines, wrote about the matter for a local Californian newspaper. He graphically described what he called the "Shake 'N Bake" procedures adopted.
The debate about white phosphorous centres on whether it is deemed to be a chemical weapon. I describe it as a weapon on the edge. Such weapons are outlawed by the chemical weapons convention to which the United States is a party. The convention is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons which is based in The Hague. Its spokesperson, Mr. Peter Kaiser, when asked if white phosphorous was banned by the CWC, stated:
No, it is not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement. If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the convention legitimate use. If, on the other hand, the toxic properties of white phosphorus [the ones I described] are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons.
Eye witness accounts prove the use of white phosphorus at Falluja. As a result, there will have to be an international investigation into what happened. It is a dirty and nasty war for all sides. UN Security Council Resolution 1441 did not authorise this war because, in accordance with the UN charter, force should only have been used as a last resort. Senator Edward Kennedy said it was the wrong war at the wrong time. It is a wrong war at any time. However, after the events of 11 September 2001, the United States was hurting. That hurt has prevented it from allowing the United Nations and Dr. Blix to take their course. If Dr. Blix and his colleagues had been given space and time, there would subsequently have been a UN Security Council decision one way or the other. However, the war went ahead without authorisation.
The Fine Gael Party supported the 1991 Iraq war because it had United Nations support but this war is different because it does not have a UN mandate. In that context, how can it be claimed that an aeroplane full of military equipment passing through Shannon Airport does not contribute to, if not represent participation in, war activity? In the Dáil debate on the war Deputy Kenny said that to allow traffic through Shannon Airport would betray our commitment to the United Nations. The passage through the airport has been raised by several members.
It is estimated there have been 38 landings of CIA-chartered aeroplanes in Ireland since 2002. It would be intolerable if it were shown that Irish facilities had been used to covertly transfer prisoners to countries where they would be subject to illegal forms of interrogation, torture or ill treatment. As a fundamental principle, the Government must make it absolutely clear that the use by any state of any Irish facility for the transfer of prisoners from and to any state must be in accordance with Irish and European law. The covert transfer of detainees cannot be supported under any circumstances.
Ireland has important legal obligations to ensure this does not take place at any time on our territory. I acknowledge the firm assurances given by the US Administration that Shannon Airport has never been used for rendition flights. I welcome that statement because Ireland and the United Sates historically have long commercial and political ties. However, such is the level of concern about this issue that it would helpful for the US ambassador to attend the committee to discuss the matter. There is a precedent for such a move. Rather than have a debate in the Seanad, there must be a more hands-on approach to the issue by the committee.

Senator Norris: The Seanad will move towards a more hands-on approach, particularly given today's developments.

Deputy Allen: The European Union has made contact with the US Administration to seek information on the possible existence of secret prisons or detention centres within the Union. This is a matter of grave concern to us. All details, if the allegations are proved true, must be placed in the public arena. We have a responsibility to ensure Irish facilities are not used for the covert transfer of prisoners. We also have a broader responsibility to ensure the European Union is not supporting any system of secret detention or network of secret prisons. The Guantanamo Bay model of detention is unacceptable to us and runs contrary to our principles of justice.

It must not be imported and, for this reason, I will support the motion as originally tabled. I ask for a meeting of minds on this fundamental issue on which we should not be divided politically. I propose that the meeting suspend for a few moments to try to come to some accommodation. We should not divide on the motion.

Chairman: I advise members at this stage that we must begin discussing another item on the agenda by 2.30 p.m.

Senator Kitt: As Deputy Allen noted, when we discussed these issues at our previous meeting I regarded the motion tabled by Deputy Michael Higgins and Senator Norris as worthy of support. Deputy Mulcahy has made a valid point on the use of the word "widespread" as it is probably not accurate. The reference to the use of severe torture is clearly accurate, as demonstrated by the use of white phosphorous to which Deputy Allen alluded. The people of Iraq who experienced severe torture under Saddam Hussein have faced further torture since the attack was launched in 2003.
Language has been terribly abused since the introduction of Resolution 1441 and during the period when Mr. Hans Blix worked on the Iraq issue. While I do not wish to address the history in detail, as Mary Robinson has stated people are not defining issues in the way one would normally expect. The abuse of language has been unfortunate.
I, too, hope we will reach some form of an agreement on the motion. As Senator Norris noted, the Seanad has already debated the issue. I appreciate the Senator's decision to table a Seanad motion for which I had considerable sympathy, although I did not vote for it owing to the Whip system. Perhaps we could draft a motion on which all members can agree because I also disagree with some aspects of the amendment tabled by Deputy Mulcahy, particularly with regard to Security Council resolutions.
It may be a terrible analogy but during a report on the Meath county football convention last night someone asked whether a way could be found to agree on a motion without holding a vote in Navan. Oddly enough, the convention decided not to vote on a resolution which contained nine clauses. Deputy Mulcahy's amendment contains nine sections, including an interesting one which notes that "in the near future all UN authorised forces in Iraq will be in a position to leave Iraq". The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Treacy, did not mention such a withdrawal during the Seanad debate but referred instead to a phased withdrawal before the end of 2006. The amendment may be somewhat presumptuous in implying that United Nations forces will leave Iraq.
Many of us warned what would happen if the invasion proceeded. As it transpired, the war has ended in tears. Will any decision to withdraw forces in the near future result in a civil war and catastrophe, particularly in light of President Talabani's statements on a phased withdrawal? I do not propose to dwell on the issue but I hope we will find a motion on which all members agree.

Deputy Mulcahy: On Deputy Allen's point that I am somehow being partisan on this issue, that is not the case. I was not consulted about the original motion and if I had been consulted, I would have made an input and tried to agree on a composite motion. For this reason, I believed it behoved me to table a more comprehensive motion, albeit perhaps not as telling and to the point as that tabled by Senator Norris and Deputy Michael Higgins.
As Senator Norris pointed out, section (a) of the amendment is stronger than the wording of the motion as the latter does not express concern about or condemn the use of white phosphorus.

Senator Norris: It does.

Deputy Mulcahy: It does not refer to white phosphorus.

Senator Norris: The motion includes the line that the Committee on Foreign Affairs, "in light of the recent revelations concerning the use of white phosphorous".....

Deputy Mulcahy: Yes, but the Senator must accept that the motion does not comment on the use of white phosphorus, whereas section (a) of the amendment states the committee "notes with concern the reports of the use of white phosphorous". As the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, stated in the Seanad, white phosphorus is not outlawed under the chemical weapons convention. If it were illegal under the convention, it would be easy for the joint committee to condemn its use but the best advice available is that this is not the case.

Senator Norris: As a point of fact, the use of white phosphorus is illegal in certain applications. If it is used for illumination or smoke cover, it is legal but it is clearly illegal when used against civilians. Eyewitness reports indicate this occurred. It is also illegal under United States domestic law, namely, under the rules of the military handbook.

Chairman: It is illegal under the protocol on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons (protocol III), signed in Geneva on 10 October 1980.

Deputy M. Higgins: That is correct.

Deputy Mulcahy: If that is the case, I have no problem with incorporating an amendment to that effect in my amendment. I want to condemn the use of white phosphorous and have taken a clear stance on the issue.
It was implied that I was somehow nobbled by Sir Henry in the Department of Foreign Affairs. I am not for nobbling by anybody and those who are familiar with how I operate on committees will know that if a Minister or an official telephoned me and told me to say "A", I would sing "B" from the top of my hymn sheet for as long as I am able. I can pooh-pooh that suggestion. I did research and read the record of the Seanad debate. If I had not done so or had failed to read the resolution passed by the Seanad, my amendment would not have been up to the minute. The majority of the amendment is identical to the wording of the resolution passed by the Seanad. I am surprised that Deputy Allen is seeking to rewrite what has been effectively agreed by the Seanad.

Senator Kitt: The Seanad did not divide.

Deputy Mulcahy: My amendment is substantially the same as the resolution passed by the Seanad. I accept, however, that section (I) is aspirational and perhaps requires amendment.

Deputy M. Higgins: The matter could be resolved. Senator Norris and I do not have a difficulty with deleting from the motion the words "widespread and severe" given that all torture is of its nature severe. I suggest Deputy Mulcahy agree to remove the line "expresses the hope that in the near future all UN authorised forces in Iraq will be in a position to leave Iraq" because it leaves open the possibility of a future United Nations force for peacekeeping. If the Deputy gives way on that matter, Senator Norris and I will have no difficulty amending the text of the motion in the manner I have suggested.

Deputy Allen: Rather than negotiate in public, the meeting should suspend for five minutes.

Chairman: We will suspend for five minutes to allow the authors of the respective texts to discuss them and try to find an accommodation.


Sitting suspended at 2.20 p.m. and resumed at 2.28 p.m.

Chairman: As a compromise on the motion has been reached, I will ask Deputy Mulcahy to read out the compromise motion in full.

Deputy Mulcahy: The amendment reads as follows:
To delete all words after "that" and substitute the following:
"(that)... the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs
(a) notes with concern the reports of the use of white phosphorus by elements of the multinational force currently in Iraq pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1637;
(b) condemns any use of chemical weapons in Iraq or elsewhere and the use of any conventional weapons in a manner which is contrary to international law;
(c) notes the intention of the government of Iraq to investigate conditions of detention following the recent deeply disturbing discovery of 170 detainees in an interior ministry building, and supports the call by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that in light of the apparently systematic nature of the problems with the system of detention, the Iraqi authorities should consider calling for an international inquiry;


[Deputy Mulcahy ctg]
If that requires bringing over specialists from the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London or from the Carnegie Endowment, I want that done because I want to know. Unfortunately, I am not yet in a position where I have full information. I want to be fully briefed. This should be a major part of our work for next year.

Deputy M. Higgins: I strongly support Deputy Mulcahy in what he seeks and has said. I agree that the NPT is in trouble. The point I would add is that it is in trouble in an appalling context. The treaty came into existence in 1970 and the review discussed here was the seventh review. When the public hears about the issue of Iran it asks the reasonable question of whether the treaty was not just about proliferation but about the elimination of weapons by those who have them. That is a lay opinion, but it is important.
It is not just a lay opinion because it is an opinion lodged in Article 6, which is the core founding principle of the NPT. To prosecute the non-proliferation side of Article 6 is an exercise in bad faith, particularly by some of the most powerful. Therefore, the language of the treaty is being defeated on the basis of force.
In looking at the seventh review, which covers to April-May 2005, it is useful to reflect on the previous reviews. Although it is controversial to say this, I put it that the reviews that took place prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union were more positive in terms of verification. If one looks at the history of the NPT in the context of the talks during the Reagan Presidency with the then Soviet Union, the possession of what was perceived to be a significant and increasing capacity led to significant movement in verification. One might also hypothesise that the later reviews have revealed that as we entered an atmosphere of a single superpower, the impulse to verification practically eroded.
This brings us to a practical point for this committee and the European Union, namely, the difficulty in retaining a position that is faithful to Article 6 in the common position of the Union. I suggest that the common position taken before the May review was overwhelmingly skewed towards non-proliferation and hardly dealt with the erosion of any movement towards verification. It was certainly weak on its language on elimination. That common position was itself distorted by the facts of the abuse of Article 6. With regard to the context in which this happens, it is one where new elements have been added to geopolitics, in particular a major fissure no longer based on the possession of the balance of armaments, but on the perceived rise of Islam and the resulting debate on what was called international terrorism.
Deputy Mulcahy is correct to raise this issue. We have not had sufficient or adequate debate on the NPT. Instead, we hear language used about rogue states as if they were our problem. They are not the problem. We have a far more serious problem with regard to verification and elimination. If I look back and ask whether the collapse of the Soviet Union and the changes that took place were seen as an opportunity for elimination on the other side of the equation which had prevailed earlier, the answer is "No". The position is that in many cases the failure and stalling on verification and the refusal of elimination led precisely to the creation of conditions into which materials would begin to flow to an uncontrolled international system. Therefore amidst that we get a discussion on Iran that is entirely unreal.
In every interpretation and every examination by the IAEA of the NPT we now leave aside half of its job undone. We now move over on the use of nuclear capacity for non-military purposes. There is no prohibition in the NPT or in any other treaty on this. I happen to disagree with nuclear energy. It is very difficult to point to international law on it and say what the situation is. We are now entitled to take the treaty, in its weak and declining days, and operate on the basis of suspicion. If these issues return to the Security Council, we better get agreement on what we favour.
I do not impute anything to the current Minister. He has made strong statements about the importance of the NPT as our departure point on this. However, there is no point in fooling us. I am concerned about the disastrously, weak, skewed and unreasonable statements issuing as the common position from Europe. They are issued under the influence of countries with a bad record in this regard, countries that are not committed to the NPT in the way we are. Indeed, some of these countries have, underhandedly, been involved in trafficking in capacity.

Mr. Montgomery: It is clear from what the three committee members have said that there is a wide political consensus on this question, a consensus that includes the Government. We agree that the issue of disarmament should be pursued as vigorously as possible. We also agree that the NPT is in difficulty. There is no doubt about that and I can, I think, speak for the Minister in saying that he would very much welcome efforts to give this issue a higher profile in the period ahead.
In terms of timing, the next step on the way is 2007, when we have the first preparatory conference for the 2010 review. However there are a number of events scheduled for the coming year into which this committee could feed. A group of NGOs has launched an "Article 6" forum to look at new and creative ways of taking this forward. There will be a meeting in the Hague in March on that and we would be happy to report to the committee on it. Ireland and Canada will co-sponsor a seminar in Geneva next May on the future of the NPT and perhaps the committee would be interested in that. A weapons of mass destruction commission was established by Anna Lindh, the former Swedish Foreign Minister, before she died. It is headed by Hans Blix and will bring forward a report on a range of WMD issues, including the NPT. This committee could follow this range of events over the coming years.
On the questions raised by Deputies, Deputy Allen spoke about how an agenda could take two weeks to agree. The agenda, as can happen on these occasions, is a proxy for the substance. One of the key issues was how to refer to what had been agreed in 2000. I remember taking part in the Northern Ireland negotiations on the Good Friday Agreement, where it took six to seven weeks to agree an agenda. All too often agendas are proxies for substance and that is what happened in May.

[Mr. Montgomery]
On the general point made by three members of the committee as regards double standards, there is no doubt that the task we face, on Iran, would be a good deal easier if the other three countries mentioned by the Deputy, India, Pakistan and Israel, were members of the NPT. This issue of the double standard arises many times in debate, particularly with members of the G77 or the non-aligned movement, NAM. Equally, as I hope was made clear in my statement, if the nuclear powers were engaged more actively in disarmament, that too would send a very positive signal. There is no dispute between us on that.
On the question of Iran, specifically, it should be remembered that it was not originally an EU initiative. The E3, namely, Britain, France and Germany got together separately. It was largely after the debacle over Iran that we saw the divisions within the Union on that question and the E3 countries were looking for an issue on which to find common ground. It was very much the initiative of Mr. Joschka Fischer, the former foreign minister. They began, privately, outside the EU framework and then brought it inside. From a pragmatic viewpoint they probably are as well placed as any group of members of the EU, in this area, not least because they have the technology and other expertise that is required and to be frank, the political weight, vis-à-vis the Americans. One of the important aspects of the E3 issue was precisely the fact that the Americans held off pursuing an individual policy of their own on this question.
In addition, while the initiative was originally conceived independently outside the EU framework, to be honest, over a substantial period the E3 countries have been pretty good and open about sharing information with the rest of us. There have been regular debates in the Council. My political director colleagues and I have had lengthy discussions about this matter. In the margins at the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, meetings in Vienna, there is much co-ordination and consultation as regards EU positions and so on. I believe the policy is broadly supported by the EU. However, it would be easier if more progress had been made on those other matters which the Deputy mentioned.
On Iran, I would not go quite so far as Deputy Mulcahy on the simple principle that two wrongs do not make a right. The failure of others to adhere to their obligations, or even sign up to them in the first place, is undoubtedly a matter of great concern and weakens the case that the rest of us have vis-à-vis Iran. However, I would not underestimate the potential threat from Iran, either. We heard what its president said about the state of Israel. There are credible reports linking Iran to the sponsorship of terrorism in a number of countries throughout the world. Too many countries already have nuclear weapons. Therefore the case for doing all we can to find a solution to the Iranian situation is very strong. It would be stronger, still, if we were in a better position more generally.
As regards what Deputy Michael D. Higgins said, I would not entirely agree with the proposition that more progress was made in the Cold War. Progress was made in the latter years of the Cold War, without question, after a very substantial escalation by both sides. However, the fact that the 1995 and 2000 review conferences both came out with quite substantial commitments in this area-----

Deputy M. Higgins: I spoke about numbers and quantification.

Mr. Montgomery: Qualification and verification was principally done, bilaterally, between the Soviets and the Americans, outside the NPT framework, previously.

Deputy M. Higgins: Exactly.

Mr. Montgomery: Even then, there was a 2002 Moscow agreement between them, which was quite important and helpful in reducing the number of nuclear weapons actually being deployed at any given time. Again, the G8 global partnership in 2002, which assisted with the destruction of nuclear material in Russia, was a positive step, so I would not be quite so negative about developments in recent years. There was a history of good progress up to 2000. However, after that much of that progress had either stalled or gone into reverse. It would be very helpful and important if the US and China were to ratify the test ban treaty, but they have not done so.

Deputy Mulcahy: Has there been a problem in Congress on the US side?

Mr. Montgomery: There might have been a problem in Congress, but this administration has made clear that it does not intend to pursue such a course.

Deputy Mulcahy: Is it not obliged to, having signed it?

Mr. Montgomery: As a general principle of international law, when a country signs a treaty, it commits to ratify it.

Deputy Mulcahy: We need to know this type of detail. I have not got all this, and I need it.

Chairman: We really have only five minutes to cover the rest of the business. Then we have to adjourn at that stage and a select committee comes in to meet the Minister. There is a need for a ten minute break between the two meetings.

Mr. Montgomery: I have a couple of other things to say. To return to the point made by Deputy Mulcahy about compliance, it is difficult to assess exactly whether member states are in compliance vis-à-vis Article 6, precisely because there is a level of detail as regards the non-proliferation obligations, especially when it comes to the additional safeguard agreements. The reports of the IAEA - the resolutions board reports or the submissions to the director general - on Iran are very specific about particular episodes. Judgments about Article 6 commitments are of a broader political character. It is difficult to define matters in black and white terms. What may be said is that following a period of encouraging progress, there has been very little or no progress in that area in recent times.
One matter on which I would take some issue with Deputy Michael D. Higgins is the question of the EU's common position. We can share all of this material with the members of the committee. In fairness, while the bulk of the common position, which was adopted on 27 April 2005, before the NPT review, related to non-proliferation-----

Deputy M. Higgins: That is right.

Mr. Montgomery:-----it contained a number of quite clear and specific------

Deputy M. Higgins: The issue was the balance. We will not argue about it now, but it is overwhelmingly balanced as regards non-proliferation.

Mr. Montgomery: That, however, relates to the nature of the treaty, where there is much more detail on the non-proliferation than on the disarmament side. However, the EU common position was not bad in that respect. It talks about a range of issues and again, commits itself to the comprehensive test ban treaty, the early inclusion of a treaty on fissile material as well as a whole range of other useful commitments. To be honest if what was in the EU common position had come out at the NPT review conference in May, that would not have been bad. I believe that covers most of the issues.

Chairman: We are now at the outer limit of our time. I thank Mr. Montgomery. As he can see from the members' responses and reactions, his explanation of matters is very helpful.

Deputy Mulcahy: We would welcome more technical briefings and documents if such are available.

Mr. Montgomery: I suggest that Mr. Adrian McDaid, here, is much more of an expert on all of this than I am, and he deals with these issues, full-time. If Deputy Mulcahy or the committee wants to make direct contact with him, vast amounts of briefing documents and papers in the public domain come to us, which we can share.

Chairman: I thank Mr. Montgomery and Mr. McDaid, as well, for coming before the committee today.

Mr. Allen: Mr. McDaid is the silent partner.

Chairman: The committee must now go into private session.

Order of Business - 7th December 2005

Order of Business – 7th December 2005

Mr. Norris: I agree with my colleagues about the importance of examining clearly the question of CIA flights through Shannon Airport. I am grateful that we are in the process of setting up a committee to examine this. It seems clear that we have reached a tipping point, that the world community is now gravely concerned and the attitudes of governments are changing in this regard. Last night, President Bush appeared on television and clearly, openly and brazenly lied. He stated that the United States does not render to states that commit torture. Members know that torture has been performed on suspects who have been rendered to Egypt by the CIA. We know this as a result of a Swedish parliamentary report and there can be no question or doubt about it. Members also know that suspects have been taken to Uzbekistan. The British ambassador resigned his post because the Government of Uzbekistan was boiling people. This is absolutely medieval. It is unbelievable.
Some of these aeroplanes pass through our airspace. Some of the people involved are not particularly pleasant and Abu Omar, for example, is a person about whom I have deep and grave doubts. Nevertheless, we still must respect international law. We know he was kidnapped in Italy, taken abroad and has now disappeared in Afghanistan. As that aeroplane was refuelled here on its return, we are already complicit in this cycle. This is an extremely dangerous matter. We have the case of Khaled el-Masri who was kidnapped----- An Cathaoirleach: If the Senator cites all these cases, we will be here for a long time.

Mr. Norris: If I may, I will finish this point, as some things must be stated and corrected. Khaled el-Masri's experiences reflect our points exactly. He was kidnapped, his clothes were slashed from him and he was drugged by the insertion of a suppository. He was then shackled to an aeroplane and was taken to Afghanistan to be tortured.
One other point must be corrected. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is incorrect, in that Ireland is entitled to search aeroplanes under the Chicago Convention of 1944. As a final point, while I am flattered that Senator Ryan has repeated a number of my points, he was slightly incorrect in one or two respects. I am glad he used the Auschwitz analogy, which is appropriate.

Mr. Minihan: Only one or two things? Mr. Norris: He was incorrect with regard to one or two points. For example, regarding the business of torture, what the Americans are now proposing is infinitely worse than what was found at Castlereagh. The Senator is correct to state that the Government took the British Government to court and got a ruling that three practices, namely, the use of white noise, sleep deprivation and hooding, constituted torture.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris, the Order of Business is not the place for this. We cannot have a debate.

Mr. Norris: Hence, Condoleezza Rice also lied yesterday.

Order of Business - 6th December 2005

Order of Business – 6th December 2005

Mr. Norris: This House led the way in alerting the public to what is happening regarding extraordinary rendition. It is appropriate that we continue to do this. The United States authorities and people such as Vice-President Cheney actively endorse and approve of torture. However, people in American society, such as Republican Senator John McCain, are so concerned about this that Senator McCain put down amendments to legislation to outlaw torture. Vice-President Cheney is now trying to remove this provision from the Bill so the CIA can continue to torture. As former President Carter has expressed serious concern about this, it could not be seen as anti-American to examine it.
In 2004, the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, told the Dáil about one of these rendition flights that landed in Shannon. He described it as a technical stop. That is worrying. We must examine it in light of advice given to a committee of the British Parliament yesterday to the effect that allowing these aeroplanes to refuel renders a country's Government complicit, under international law, in the commission of a serious international crime. Last week I mentioned the possibility of establishing an all-party committee of this House to investigate this matter and the Leader indicated she would consider it. With the assistance of the clerical staff here I have looked through the Standing Orders of this House and there is provision under Standing Order 64 to establish such a committee. I ask the Leader to consider this as soon as possible and would be happy to talk to her after the Order of Business to see if this can be done. All that is required is the establishment of terms of reference.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has made the request.

Statements on Transport Policy -1st December 2005

Statements on Transport Policy – 1st December 2005

Mr. Norris: In fact, I may not use all of the
time allotted.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House.
I am rather sorry she indicated she will not continue
in public life after the next election. Her
absence will be a great loss to Irish public life. I
have happy memories of serving with her, going
back to my first term on the Oireachtas joint committee
dealing with women’s rights. I am sure she
will find many other ways of contributing to Irish
public life but she certainly will be a loss to political
life in the general sense.
I welcomed the Transport 21 initiative. I almost
fully welcomed it and I still welcome it in outline
but I was disappointed with the Minister’s speech
because it was so generalised. It contained no
particular detail. Reference was made to the
\34.4 billion cost. It contains evasions and
excuses. Some of them are credible enough, such
as not wanting to give away commercially sensitive
information. It also contains generalised
comments on the need to update urban transport.
One aspect I find extremely sinister is the lack
of any mention of the metro from beginning to
end. I campaigned on this for 20 years. I amended
a bill concerning Dublin transport seven or eight
years ago when, through an accident of politics,
this side of the House was in the majority. The
Independents held the balance of power. It was
discussed by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on
Transport. I will return to that point because it
seems the recommendations of that committee
are being subverted in some way by what one
could describe as the permanent Government
which has always been against the metro.
I must pay tribute to the Leader of this House,
Senator O’Rourke, because she had the backbone
and gumption to run with the metro proposal
where her two male predecessors were
frightened off by the gurus. I am not a partisan
person. I am genuinely independent. I praise the
Government when I believe it is right and I look
to the work of the Oireachtas Joint Committee
on Transport because it is non-partisan and we
all unite. I am concerned that some of our recommendations
are being ignored. People on the
Government side pointed out the lack of a timetable.
Let us not be sold a pup. I did not join in
the chorus of condemnation from this side of the
House. I welcomed it but we need specifics.
Budget figures have been revealed and now is the
time to come clean and make it clear and
targeted.
This morning I received an e-mail from the
Meath on Track campaign as I am sure did many
other people. Its members seek support in calling
for funding to be made available for the complete
outline design scheme for the 26 miles to Navan
next year. That seems to be an ideal project.
Navan is one of our growing dormitory towns
with a large and increasing number of people who
need to get in and out of the greater Dublin area
using public transport. The e-mail states that once
the design scheme is completed it will be possible
to ascertain the costs involved in reinstating the
Navan line and the issues of levies, funding and
delivery timescales can be addressed based on
factual information. Without this information, the
proposal for Navan contained in Transport 21 will
leave the people of Meath no closer to the reintroduction
of rail services than prior to the
announcement. There is no provision for a
detailed examination of the situation, which must
be done prior to the commencement of the project,
and this concerns me.
Senator Dooley referred to Professor Melis but
unfortunately I was unable to visit Madrid. I have
met Professor Melis and I was responsible for
bringing him here through the agency of Cormac
Rabbitt and Rudi Monaghan, transport engineers
who have been very helpful to the Joint Committee
on Transport. Rumours were spread around
the committee that Professor Melis had been
unhelpful in some way and had not maintained
contact. That is not true and the reverse is the
case. Professor Melis offered to train Irish personnel
in Madrid and he has yet to receive an
acknowledgement of the offer. I ask if we are
serious and suggest we examine this situation.
We were told building costs in Ireland were 2.4
times the costs in Madrid but this is not correct. I
have been provided with factual information that
suggests costs are directly comparable to the
point of being almost in line. We can scotch that
excuse. Disadvantageous comparisons were made
between tunnelling schemes such as the Dublin
Port tunnel and the Madrid technology. The
machines used in Madrid were of a substantially
different design. The boring machines used in the
port tunnel had to be stopped for 20 minutes at 45
minute intervals to replace side panels. Machines
used by Professor Melis in Madrid go straight
through, non-stop, and this represents a saving.
The Minister was somewhat coy about costs in
his speech and perhaps there is a reason for this.
The figure of \34.4 billion over ten years
announced in Transport 21 must be considered in
light of recently published pre-budget Estimates.
These figures add another piece to the puzzle.
The Department of Transport has \2.28 billion,
of which \1.6 billion appears to be for capital
expenditure. On this basis even someone as innumerate
as myself, who failed arithmetic in the
leaving certificate, can calculate that it will take
21.5 years to complete the project, finishing in
2027. In these Estimates, the total spending for
the whole country, \48.5 billion, of which \34.4
billion is capital expenditure, means that Government
spending on transport over the next ten
years must be 10% of total Government spending,
a considerable sum of money.
External agencies have commented on this and
I refer to one A&L Goodbody report which suggests
there is a missing figure of \1.5 billion for
the aviation sector. Where is this in the Government’s
calculations? Examining the situation
further, the 39 selected projects include six Luas,
comprising five Luas extensions and one new
Luas line to Lucan and two metro lines, one running
north to Swords via the airport and one running
west to Tallaght, Clondalkin, Lucan,
Blanchardstown and Ballymun. There was a
lovely map at Dublin Castle showing the routing
of the Luas and one aspect is curious and troubling
to me. The deficiency that is the absence of a
link between the two metro lines will be supplied
twice. A Luas line will run on the surface, which
will be problematical in terms of street arrangements
and building structures, as well as a metro
line.
This is the most expensive section for either rail
system and raises the question of why the
Government is duplicating it. One is driven to the
conclusion that the Government will build the
Luas and hump the metro. This concerns me and
if this is the position of the Government let us be
open about it. Let us not pretend we are going to
build a metro if it is not going to happen. Those
of us in all parties and members of the transport
committee who believe a metro is essential can
then make the argument. At present we are firing
into cotton wool. We need a clear commitment
from the Government.
There is also a curious reversal of priorities,
with the completion of certain projects now
deemed essential before work commences on the
metro. These include the three extensions to the
Luas and the metro between Tallaght, Clondalkin
and Lucan. The Joint Committee on Transport
unanimously adopted a report prepared by
O’Reilly Consultants that contains nothing partisan.
That report indicated the metro was advantageous
to the citizens of Dublin and Ireland but
also that there would be a substantial cost, albeit
partially concealed, in not building the metro.
This does not seem to have been taken on board.
What is the standing of the Joint Committee
on Transport in the eyes of the Minister and his
advisors? Do they take the extensive work done
on the metro seriously or is the committee a decoration
while decisions are made behind the
scenes by people not accountable to citizens? I do
not mean any disrespect to our Civil Service, for
which I have high respect. It is not the fault of
civil servants if they get their way, we need politicians
who will stand up to them and continue to
tell the truth.
Yesterday, an important meeting of the Joint
Committee on Transport coincided with the
Order of Business in this House. That shows complete
contempt for Seanad E´ ireann as meetings
never coincide with the Order of Business in the
Da´ il. I have drawn this to the attention of the
Chairman, the staff and leaders of different parties.
I have asked them not to allow Senators
attend such meetings just once, so that there will
be an insufficient number for a quorum. If we do
this once we will put manners on those arranging
the meetings. There is always someone who slithers
in at the last minute and saves the bacon.
This House should agree not to attend the next
meeting that clashes with the Order of Business.
I have been advised over a number of years
by two remarkable people, one of whom, Rudi
Monaghan, is dead. The other, Cormac Rabbit, is
a significant traffic engineer. He made connections
with Professor Melis, spoke to the committee
on transport and has the necessary facts and
figures. His Dargan proposal, named in memory
of William Dargan who built so many railways,
concerns a circle line. Dublin, as city with a bay, is ideally constituted
for this suggestion. There would be a 12.2 km.
circle line, the loop line would be upgraded and
extended by the construction of a 5.9 km. tunnel,
located mostly south of the Liffey, with interchange
stations to the existing six rail and nine
road spokes. It is planned to locate stations
approximately 0.8 km. to 1.2 km. apart. The tunnel
could be built on wayleave land, 80% of
which is publicly owned. We will not have problems
with land if we follow this plan. The wayleave
allows tunnel construction and maintenance
and does not imply land purchase. The circle line
profitably provides a rail hub by its utilisation of
existing infrastructure. Simply said, it benefits
from extensive working infrastructure to maximise
the number of fares. In addition, the project
capitalises on currently available low interest finance.
The foregoing helps to contribute to a minimum
investment return in year one of 5.2%.
Acting Chairman (Mr. Leyden): I must derail
the Senator at this point.
Mr. Norris: I will be happy to make this information
available to the Minister. I have detailed
figures here and have requested that Mr. Rabbitt
be allowed to make a submission to the Joint
Committee on Transport. A colleague from one
of the Opposition parties poured scorn on this
and spoke about self-appointed experts but Mr.
Rabbitt is an internationally acclaimed expert,
while my colleague is a self-appointed expert herself.
When we have talent in this country, recognised
by the O’Reilly report, we should call it in.
We do not have to take the advice given, but we
should add it to the mix.
This project is based on public private partnerships
and is an innovative plan. It is based on the
type of model that gave us the International Financial
Services Centre, which, I admit, I mocked
in the beginning. That is the kind of entrepreneurship
we need.
Are we serious about the metro or is Transport
21 just a lot of camouflage? I suggest it is the
latter, based on the Minister’s speech and the lack
of figures, timetabling and public commitment.

Motion on Commissions of Investigation - 1st December 2005

Motion on Commissions of Investigation – 1st December 2005

Mr. Norris: I welcome the Minister to the
House. I have but a few remarks, as many of the
salient points have been made by my colleagues.
The Minister’s contribution dealt with the technical
parameters of the Bill and I cannot think of a
better person to deal with these issues. However,
I refer to the terms and references of the Bill,
which states, “matters relating to and surrounding
the making of a confession of Dean Lyons
deceased . . .”. How far could the term “surrounding”
lead us? I am concerned not only with the
matter of the confession of Dean Lyons but also
about the plight of the family. A niece was in
touch with me and I raised the issue in the House
a little time ago. Family members feel there will
be no closure for them and they are interested in
the possibility of a further prosecution.
Senator Kett mentioned that a man in custody
made a confession that appears to be more consistent
with the facts. If there is evidence, I hope
there will be a prosecution because the human
impact on the bereaved in these circumstances
must be recognised. I believe I am correct but I
am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong. This
has happened in other cases — for example, the
same phenomenon emerged in the case of
Malcolm MacArthur where, because a conviction
was secured on one count, other counts were not
pursued. That leaves the families of the victims in
limbo. They feel there is no closure and they feel
the dignity of the lives of their murdered relatives
have not been addressed by the State.
The expense of running a trial is an issue but,
in this case, \510,000 has been made available for
the investigation. I would like the Minister to
come up with a solution. There may be an ingenious
solution whereby charges can be added. I do
not know because I do not have the necessary
background or expertise but surely it is wrong
that people should be murdered and their fate left
in a legal limbo when it is relatively clear who
perpetrated the act, nobody is convicted and
there is no closure for the relatives. This needs to
be addressed.
The sum provided for the inquiry is modest in
comparison with sums provided for other commissions
and tribunals of inquiry. Will further
funding be needed? Can the inquiry be completed
in four months? If not, why not? The Minister
has cracked the whip a little over his erstwhile
colleagues in the legal profession. I am glad
about this, although I do not mean he is doing it
a nasty way. He is suggesting that, as an elected
politician, he has a duty to ensure value for
money for the taxpayer . There is variety in the
performance of these various inquiries, some of
which are extraordinarily efficient, achieve results
and come to conclusions while others dither and
dally and wander all around the place. I hope the
Minister will confirm this will be an efficient
inquiry. It will deal with a targeted case and it
should not be allowed to become diffuse. It
should, however, consider the terms outlined by
the Minister.
Such a case is potentially damaging to the perception
of the police. Ironically, approximately
seven years ago, I was asked to speak at an international
police convention in Dublin Castle. I was
invited because the organisers wanted to spice up
the event. I certainly obliged and I recall being
virulently attacked by an Irish-American police
chief. However, recommendations had been
made at that time that Garda interviews and
interrogations should not only be subject to an
audio recording but should also be videotaped. I
pointed out that this would protect not only the
suspect but, importantly from the point of view
of the State, it would protect the integrity of the
police. A number of interrogations have been
conducted in an improper manner and the Minister
is aware of this. It happens in every jurisdiction
but videotaping will help to get around
that.
However, false accusations are sometimes
made by the accused against the police. The Minister
has spoken on the wireless about difficulties
in this regard. For example, where video
recordings are made, the defence counsel may
apply for them and they may find their way to the
associates of the accused and be used for nefarious
purposes. However, somebody of the
Minister’s intellectual ability and ingenuity will
find a way around that problem. It is regrettable
that a vulnerable homeless person should have
found himself in this situation. One can understand
the alacrity with which the police received
a confession because it made their job so much
easier. However, in this case, the shortest way
home was the longest way around. I could use
many cliche´ s including a number in Latin such as
festina lente but, sometimes, a bit of a rush mucks
things up. Will the Minister outline whether it will
be possible to provide closure for the family of
the two women, Mary Callinan and Sylvia Shiels,
because they feel it keenly? I doubt if I am only
person who was written to in this House about
this. It hit home to me that these people were
essentially forgotten. They feel very keenly seven
years later that their two vulnerable elderly relatives
were butchered but there has been no trial
or conviction and there can be no closure for
them until somebody is made to accept responsibility
for the crime.

Order of Business - 1st December 2005

Order of Business - 1st December 2005

Mr. Norris: I ask for a debate before Christmas
on the issue of homelessness, particularly in our
cities. We have many debates on child care, which
is essentially a middle-class issue——
Ms O’Meara: No, it is not.
Mr. Norris: Yes, it is. We are left here——
Ms O’Meara: It is not. I must say——
Mr. Norris: Yes, it is.
Ms O’Meara: That is outrageous. Child care is
not a middle-class issue.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Norris without
interruption.
Mr. Norris: I happen to think it is. One reads
newspaper articles about people with two children,
a house and cars who want the taxpayer to
pick up the bill so they can have a third child——
Ms O’Meara: That is an extremely unfair
remark.
Mr. Norris: I am just making that point.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Norris without
interruption. Is Senator Norris seeking a
debate?
Ms O’Meara: That is unfair to the many thousands
of people who struggle with this issue
every day.
Mr. B. Hayes: Working class hero.
Mr. Norris: When we consider this issue, we
should consider people who are more
vulnerable——
Mr. Ryan: Illiberal liberalism.
Mr. Norris: I am discussing people who have
absolutely nothing, 15 of whom died in recent
weeks.
Mr. Ryan: It is nobody’s problem.
Mr. Norris: Neither of them are my problem. I
am not homeless and I am not in a situation
requiring child care. I am making the distinction
that people seeking child care already have something
and these people have nothing.
Ms O’Meara: It is an unnecessary distinction.
Mr. Norris: I also request a debate on Iraq. The
city centre of Ramadi was taken over by 400
armed men who claim to be members of al-
Qaeda, on the day after President Bush again told
a military audience he is winning his war. On top
of that we are made complicit in the crime of torture
because a Gulfstream V jet, which is an
international pariah, is still allowed to conduct its
torture missions through our airports.
I notice two articles beside each other on the
front page of The Irish Times today, one indicating
that less than 10% of people have applied for
decentralisation, and the other indicating that the
Minister of State at the Department of Transport,
Deputy Callely, is on his sixth secretary in three
years and is also seeking a new constituency secretary.
Will the Government consider giving him
responsibility for decentralisation?

Motion on Road Safety - 30th November 2005

Motion on Road Safety – 30th November 2005

Mr. Norris: I welcome this debate, but I am
sorry it is so adversarial. We make a mistake by
taking the attitude regularly that we will have one
party praising the Minister and the other attacking
him for failure. This carping style does not
go down well with the public, particularly when
dealing with a subject as serious as road safety.
The debate has not been confrontational, but the
terms are, which is a pity.
It is useful that this matter is addressed in the
Joint Committee on Transport, of which both
Senator Dooley and I are members. Mr. Eddie
Shaw appeared before the committee recently
and he provided a very interesting breakdown
and recommendations, including legislative
recommendations. I will not summarise them
here, but the Minister would do well to look at
the report of the committee. The committee acts
in a neutral atmosphere and that is why it is so
valuable.
With regard to how gardaı´ form an opinion that
somebody is drunk, a dreadful situation was
reported on the radio recently where a woman
spoke in a very dignified manner about how her
husband who had a stroke was left to die on the
floor of the Garda station because gardaı´ thought
he was drunk.
On the matter of speeding, we must have consistency
and coherence with regard to speed
limits. They are absurd and all over the place. We
will not have respect for the law unless we do
something to ensure it can be respected. Some
issues are quite obvious with regard to crashes.
Every weekend we get the same kind of syndrome,
we find a group of young people with
powerful cars on secondary roads in a rural environment
in the early hours of Sunday morning —
quite often drink is involved. Let us examine
rather than evade this issue.
There are also circumstances where the authorities
have a real responsibility. I want to raise a
particular case which illustrates a serious worry. I
refer to a young woman called Aisling Gallagher
who was killed in Mayo. Her parents have been
in touch with me. She was travelling on the road
after a shopping trip and was due to catch an
aeroplane to America the following day. There
was a temporary surface on the road. There was
no warning about the use of dense bitumen
macadam forming the top layer. There were markings
on the road which suggested it was a full,
proper surface, but it was not. There were no
indications of a speed restriction.
The speed limit sign on that road indicated 100
km/h. One is not compelled to drive at 100 km/h
in such a speed zone but one has a sense of safety
if the authorities are of the view that when driving
at 100 km/h one will be safe. Driving at even
30 km/h in this case would probably have been
enough to lead to this accident. The parents in
this case feel there was serious disregard for
public safety because there was no safety warning
and there was an inappropriate temporary surface,
and this has continued to be the position
since then.
This girl was only 20 years old. She had got
an honours degree. She was a wonderful young,
attractive, intelligent woman with her life in front
of her. The National Roads Authority had outlawed
the use of DBM wearing course outside 50
km/h zones, and there was a sign indicating a
speed limit of 100 km/h on this road. This young
girl, Aisling Gallagher, was approaching a bend
in road in the village of Murrivaugh had to reduce
speed because the car in front was turning right.
Immediately and unexplainedly, her car veered
across the road in the path of a loaded concrete
wagon coming in the opposite direction. Neither
motorist had taken any alcohol and this was
shown to be the case subsequently and, furthermore,
neither was speeding.
The Minister needs to examine the question of
road surfaces. Some are clearly done wrong. I
have evidence in this case that the buck was
passed from one Department to another, to the
Health and Safety Authority, to the National
Roads Authority and then passed back to the
county council where the process began. I will
send copies of this information to the Minister.
This issue is serious and I believe it may have
been at the root of the tragic accident involving
the school bus in Trim.

Request to Move Adjournment of Seanad under Standing Order 29

Request to Move Adjournment of Seanad under
Standing Order 29.

30th November 2005

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I have notice from
Senator Norris regarding a motion he wishes to
raise under Standing Order 29. I call Senator
Norris to give notice of the motion before I give
my ruling.
Mr. Norris: I request that the House be
adjourned under the terms of Standing Order 29
to debate the need for the Government to take
immediate steps to resolve the dangerous and
confrontational situation between Irish Ferries
and its shipboard employees as it is a matter of
urgent national importance. We have witnessed
the entrance of hired thugs on to the ship in question
and the maintenance of a vigil by the crew
on board the ship. Attempts to register the ship
under a different flag have also been made. This
issue has been ruled a matter of national importance
in the other House.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I have given careful
consideration to the matter raised by Senator
Norris, which I do not consider to be contemplated
by Standing Order 29. I regret, therefore,
that I have had to rule it out of order.
Mr. Norris: I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach
for his ruling but it makes a farce of the business
of the House and the Standing Orders. It is ludicrous
that a matter can be considered a national
emergency in the other House but not in this
House. The idea that careful consideration is
being given to the matter is nonsense. A similar
situation arose previously when I raised a matter
and was informed that it was not a matter of
national importance. Thirty minutes later, the
then Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, stated in the
other House that it was a matter of national
importance. Could an inquiry be held into the
space-time continuum as it affects Seanad
Eireann.
ireann and Da´ il E´ ireann because they appear to
operate on two different planets?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Standing Orders
in Seanad E´ ireann differ from those in Da´ il
E´
ireann. A recent amendment to Standing Order
29 means that a matter can only be raised under
the Standing Order if it has arisen suddenly. The
matter to which Senator Norris refers arose last
week and can be raised in different ways other
than Standing Order 29.

Order of Business - 30th November 2005

Order of Business – 30th of November 2005

Mr. Norris: I support my colleague, Senator
O’Toole, in his call for a debate on Irish Ferries.
Virtually everybody agrees that the buccaneering
attitude of Irish Ferries towards its employees
and the thuggish way it introduced people to its
ships, effectively smuggling security officers
onboard, is just not tolerable. The President of
Cyprus attended today’s meeting of the
Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs
and indicated that the Cypriot Government is
unhappy about the reflagging issue, although it
may be compelled to permit Irish Ferries to reflag
because of its obligations under international law.
However, it was very interesting that the President
himself raised the subject and received a
round of applause at the meeting.
I have tabled a motion under Standing Order
29 requesting that this matter be discussed today
as a matter of national priority and urgency. A
similar motion was successful in the other House
yesterday so it will be interesting to see the progress
of this one.
3 o’clock
I ask for a further debate on Iraq. I propose
that we follow the example of the British Parliament
and ask the Leader to establish a crossparty
parliamentary committee to
investigate flights through Shannon.
The pattern of flights in the UK is
the same as in this country and they are concerned
that the situation implicates Britain in torture
and extraordinary rendition.
Mr. Chris Mullin, a former junior Minister at
Westminster, expressed his concern on television
last night. The aeroplane that lands at Shannon
was in the background of the shot throughout the
programme, detectable by its registration
number. We know the nature of the torture,
namely, they drown detainees and revive them
and use electric drills on them. What does President
Bush have to do before the Taoiseach acts
or says “Boo” to the Americans? Does he have
to establish extermination camps in Shannon?
Mr. Ryan: Upset the Roman Catholic Church?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is Senator Norris
asking for a debate?
Mr. Norris: I ask for a debate and ask the
Leader to establish a cross-party committee, as
they have in the British House of Commons
because of concerns that their people are implicated
in this filth. That aeroplane is a pariah and
should not be permitted in Irish airspace.
I support Senator O’Toole and am grateful to
him for raising the subject of gay priests and the
Vatican. It must be viewed in the context of our
own responsibilities. We permitted the churches
to get away with an exemption from the operation
of equality law. They have shown themselves
to be unfit. If we are responsible to the
citizens of this country, including gay citizens, we
must re-examine that exemption. A moving
article in today’s edition of the Irish Independent
told how a lovely young man in Donegal killed
himself because of this situation. His sister, to
whom I pay tribute, gave interviews on radio and
in the press in which she laid the responsibility at
our door because there is no educational programme
in this area.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is the Senator supporting
the call for a debate?
Mr. Norris: I support the call for a debate
because it affects the lives and survival of people
in this country. I ask the Leader to seek a reexamination
and possible amendments to
equality legislation to prevent a church that has
behaved so viciously toward gay people from outlawing
decent people, putting them out of their
jobs and, sometimes, their homes simply because
they support a gay lifestyle. What does that
mean? I saw an article in the Irish
Independent——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We are not having
the debate now, Senator Norris.
Mr. Norris: ——where the Pope is described as
using Italian fashion, handmade wristwatches and
a very attractive male secretary. Does that mean
the Pope supports a gay lifestyle? Perhaps he will
comment on it.