Statements on the Appropriation Act 2005 - 26th January 2006

Statements on the Appropriation Act 2005
Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my colleague Senator Brady for allowing me a couple of minutes of his time. I usually use the opportunity that arises while discussing the Appropriation Act to take up matters about which I have been lobbied by various charities. I have a folder containing correspondence from Age Action Ireland, Focus Ireland and organisations associated with child poverty and social inclusion for farm families.
Other Members have raised my concerns, some of which have been addressed at least partially in the budget, and I therefore want to make just one point which concerns a very decent man who lobbied me. I was actually part of a group that went up the Amazon in Brazil to raise funds for the blind. The man who lobbied me was a Garda driver who owned and drove his own car for 20 years. He was fully sighted at the age of 41 and at 42 he became blind. He represents various organisations for the blind. His problem and that of the people he represents is that blind people are excluded from the disabled drivers' and passengers' tax concessions scheme, which gives tax refunds to people to afford them mobility and allow them adapt motor cars so they can have independence. The blind have free travel on public transport and are allowed to have special discs to allow them have their vehicles parked in parking spaces for the disabled, yet they are excluded from the concessions scheme, which seems very unfair. I ask the Minister to reconsider this situation.
The cost of living for a blind person is estimated to be one third more than that for a fully able-bodied person. It is a question of whether the person is disabled and whether the provision of a car and driver, which is a lot more expensive than mere modification, should be considered feasible for inclusion in the scheme. Many proprietors of car showrooms assume automatically that blind people are entitled to the concession and advise them to this effect.
Consider the position if immobility is a criterion under the scheme. I am told and believe that a blind person, if taken out of a car and dumped in the middle of the road, would be just as immobile as a paraplegic who fell out of his or her wheelchair, but for different reasons. I am making the case that, under European legislation, statutory policies are required to be inclusive. In this case, unless the Minister has, without my knowing it, made a change in the budget already - I do not believe he has - the policies are not inclusive.
I am sorry to have to say that Ireland is the only EU country that does not give financial assistance to blind people towards the cost of mobility. In Britain and Northern Ireland, there is a care and mobility allowance which is not even means-tested. It is not a great sum of money but if it were granted here it would make a great transformation to the lives of the vulnerable citizens to whom I refer. I ask the Minister of State to take this on board.

The Order of Business - 26th January 2006

The Order of Business – 26th January 2006
Mr. Norris: I would like to formally move non-Government motion No. 20 in my name, which seeks to extend the time allowed for the Order of Business to 45 minutes. If the Acting Leader is prepared to defer No. 1 until after the Committee on Procedure and Privileges has met, I will be happy to withdraw my motion. Yesterday the Order of Business lasted for over an hour and was very successful. It is the only time the media cover the business of this House - that is the reality. We are always complaining that we get no coverage. Do we want to cut out the bit of coverage that we get? Are we that thick?
Dr. Mansergh: Would we get more coverage if we extended the Order of Business? I do not believe so.
Mr. Norris: Could Senator Mansergh speak a little bit louder? I cannot hear him so well.
Dr. Mansergh: Would we get more media coverage if we extended the Order of Business? I do not believe so.
Mr. Norris: I heard part of the solo but it was drowned out by the chorus behind him, which does not seem to agree with him.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris should speak on the Order of Business and through the Chair.
Mr. Norris: I beg the Cathaoirleach's pardon - no insult was meant to him. The time to be measured is actually the time from the end of the announcement of the Business of the Seanad, including the announcement of matters on the Adjournment, until the time the Leader or Acting Leader stands up. It is important that we maintain this timeframe.
Perhaps the Committee on Procedure and Privileges should consider the way in which this House is consistently treated with contempt by committees of both Houses. Yesterday, for the umpteenth time, the Joint Committee on Transport was scheduled to meet at a time that clashed directly with the Order of Business of this House. Members of the Seanad should boycott those committees to put them in their place.
In light of the fact that we are establishing a committee to consider CIA rendition flights, I had a meeting yesterday with senior gardaí, who were asked to meet me by the Garda Commissioner, to whom I had written. They made the point that the United Nations convention against torture legislation, which was introduced through this House some years ago, does not confer rights on the Garda to enter the aircraft in question or to arrest persons even if there is strong information that they may be subjecting people to torture. We need to consider these gaps in legislation.
We should have a debate on the Middle East in light of the Palestinian elections. Some people regret that Hamas will obviously be the largest party. I hope it will be put into a situation in which it will have to form a coalition with the parties led by Mustafa Barghouti and Hanan Ashrawi. We would be very foolish not to encourage this development. In Ireland we encouraged the progression of the IRA through Sinn Féin into some degree of participation in parliamentary democracy. The same should be done in the Middle East.

Mr. Norris: I would like to formally move non-Government motion No. 20 in my name, which seeks to extend the time allowed for the Order of Business to 45 minutes. If the Acting Leader is prepared to defer No. 1 until after the Committee on Procedure and Privileges has met, I will be happy to withdraw my motion. Yesterday the Order of Business lasted for over an hour and was very successful. It is the only time the media cover the business of this House - that is the reality. We are always complaining that we get no coverage. Do we want to cut out the bit of coverage that we get? Are we that thick?

Dr. Mansergh: Would we get more coverage if we extended the Order of Business? I do not believe so.
Mr. Norris: Could Senator Mansergh speak a little bit louder? I cannot hear him so well.
Dr. Mansergh: Would we get more media coverage if we extended the Order of Business? I do not believe so.
Mr. Norris: I heard part of the solo but it was drowned out by the chorus behind him, which does not seem to agree with him.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris should speak on the Order of Business and through the Chair.
Mr. Norris: I beg the Cathaoirleach's pardon - no insult was meant to him. The time to be measured is actually the time from the end of the announcement of the Business of the Seanad, including the announcement of matters on the Adjournment, until the time the Leader or Acting Leader stands up. It is important that we maintain this timeframe.
Perhaps the Committee on Procedure and Privileges should consider the way in which this House is consistently treated with contempt by committees of both Houses. Yesterday, for the umpteenth time, the Joint Committee on Transport was scheduled to meet at a time that clashed directly with the Order of Business of this House. Members of the Seanad should boycott those committees to put them in their place.
In light of the fact that we are establishing a committee to consider CIA rendition flights, I had a meeting yesterday with senior gardaí, who were asked to meet me by the Garda Commissioner, to whom I had written. They made the point that the United Nations convention against torture legislation, which was introduced through this House some years ago, does not confer rights on the Garda to enter the aircraft in question or to arrest persons even if there is strong information that they may be subjecting people to torture. We need to consider these gaps in legislation.
We should have a debate on the Middle East in light of the Palestinian elections. Some people regret that Hamas will obviously be the largest party. I hope it will be put into a situation in which it will have to form a coalition with the parties led by Mustafa Barghouti and Hanan Ashrawi. We would be very foolish not to encourage this development. In Ireland we encouraged the progression of the IRA through Sinn Féin into some degree of participation in parliamentary democracy. The same should be done in the Middle East.
I agree we should have a debate on road safety. However, as legislators, we must clean up our own act. We should put pressure on county managers and county councils because the real reason there is such a problem with road safety is not just the behaviour of young people and drinking, but because the operation of speed limits and road bumps is chaotic and there is no consistency or coherence.
Two deeply tragic situations have arisen. A talented, lovely young woman, Ms Aisling Gallagher, was killed approximately one year ago as a result of the condition of the road surface, to which attention had been drawn.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator-----
Mr. Norris: The report on the Navan bus crash made the same point, namely, that there was a deficiency in the road surface. The authorities are as much to blame as young people who get drunk.
An Cathaoirleach: That will be a matter for the debate.

Motion on Employment Rights - 25th January 2006

Motion on Employment Issue – 25th January 2006
Mr. Norris: I am sorry to inhibit the Minister of State in this way but I am glad to have the opportunity to speak and to provide time for my colleague Senator Henry who will now have time to speak. I am glad too that the Minister of State has the facility to read at such great speed because otherwise we would not have had time to speak. What he said was rather interesting.
Mr. Coghlan: He is a very efficient speed reader.
Mr. Norris: At the beginning of his speech he referred to social partnership. It is a pity he was not here for the Order of Business today because my colleague, Senator Ross, raised an important point about the transfer of powers extra-democratically to this unelected and not entirely representative body. I agree with the Minister of State that social partnership and such discussions have laid the foundation for much of our economic and social progress, whose results I welcome.
There is, however, to use a cliché, a democratic deficit. Members on both sides of the House this morning suggested that representatives of the social partners come into the House to engage in an information and question session. This would be very useful because it would bring this type of negotiation back into the democratic process. I hope the Minister of State will support that call and assist us in responding to it.

I regret the fact that there is an amendment to the motion. What is the point of it? The motion is concerned with the protection of workers, developing registered employment agreements, devoting increased resources to the Labour Inspectorate, and ensuring enforcement and Revenue inspection. We all know that is right. The Minister of State could not possibly quibble with any single item in the motion, yet we get this stupid, knee-jerk reaction all the time, which is demeaning politics. It is a case of the Government side saying "White" if the Opposition says "Black". If an Opposition motion states anything, the Government amends it by deleting everything in the text and saying "We commend the Government for its wonderful work". The public is not fooled by this and it is a waste of time. If only we could get together and agree a central ground in the interests not of our parties but of the workers of this country, we would be much better off.
The Gama construction workers are mentioned in the motion. It is a shame and a reproach on every party in this House that it took Deputy Joe Higgins, the Independent Socialist Member in the other House, to unearth this scandal which had been concealed. All the matters which have been correctly mentioned by the Labour Party were found not to have been operated properly. It was only the investigative action of Deputy Joe Higgins that managed to bring this matter to the surface and rescue the situation for Gama workers. That is a great pity.
The fact that these abysmal conditions exist can be ascertained by putting a human face to them. I wish to cite some quotations that were issued from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. A chef from Romania stated, "I moved to Ireland in 2001 on a work permit. Since then I've had five or six jobs. In my last job I started on €2 an hour." I pay my cleaning lady €20 an hour. What is the minimum wage, it is €9 or €10 per hour?
Mr. Killeen: It is €7.65.
Mr. Norris: Well, €2 is less than a third of that. Sarah, a domestic worker from Sri Lanka, stated "The December 2004 tsunami destroyed my family's land. My father and uncles have no work. I have to stay here so I can send money to them. One day, my employer threw a wet, dirty cloth in my face and told me to clean the floors. Her children sat at the kitchen table laughing at me. I cried and went to my room. I am regularly used as target practice."
Akim, an asylum seeker from Nigeria, stated "My employer, who is a farmer, paid me just over €2 an hour to pick fruit and stones and do other general work. I work long hours. I worked until my hands bled." That is slavery. Apart from anything else, nobody will pay a blind bit of notice to this debate. It is over the critical time period and we will never get this onto Oireachtas Report or anywhere else. Therefore, instead of fighting for a mean-minded and stupid advantage, why do we not do the decent thing, unite and accept that we need to assist people in these critical situations. I applaud the Labour Party for tabling this motion which I intend to support.
I welcome the call in the motion for reform of the existing work permit system to allow for a green card. Last night, I had a meal with a friend who is from outside this country. He is a decent lad who regularly attends a gym. He was complaining because he pays his taxes and is legally resident here. He does very good work for this country. The gym he attends is full of Polish, Latvian and other workers who are employed by builders. I know that those in the construction industry are good friends of the present Government, but sometimes one must look at one's friends. Those workers in the gym were being paid €50 or €100 a day in cash. In Britain, when Irish labourers were treated like this it was called the lump. They used to go off and spend all their money on drink. As we speak, however, we have that situation in this country. Of the 20 people from various eastern European countries to whom my friend spoke in the gym last week, not one of them paid a cent in tax, although they were earning reasonably good money. My pal is not a mean-minded person. Quite reasonably, however, he said: "I pay my taxes. These people are making large amounts of money. The entrepreneur is doing well out of it, but what happens when one of them gets sick? We'll all have to pay out of our taxes to keep them in hospital."
In equity, therefore, we need to examine both ends of the scale - people who are illegally kept in slavery, and foolish workers who, like many Irish people in the past, take cash wages, do not register for income tax and then expect the State to support them. This is a great pity.
I welcome the green card proposal, but I do not think it goes far enough. I accept the response of the ICTU which described it as a bad and defective law that needed a good deal of amendment. I will instance a couple of matters to which the Minister of State referred in his speech. One is the question of work permits. There is a real problem in that people are dependent on their employers for the permits. The green card proposal is supposed to get around that difficulty but it does not because the ownership of the work permit does not transfer. It should be in the possession of the worker. Why can workers not be allowed to have such permits legally? Currently, it is up to a new employer to obtain a new work permit, which is a mistake. There should be a transferable work permit attaching to the worker and his or her talents. This is a serious and important point because if such workers want to change jobs, the prospective employer must obtain a new permit. That is wrong in my opinion.
The Minister of State has indicated that under the proposed legislation, green card holders will be allowed to bring their spouses to Ireland. That is true up to a certain point, but I would like to hear a full articulation of the Government's policy regarding the reunification of families. That has not happened and it is not exclusively the prerogative of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
Another problem is a domestic Irish one which fits into this debate. It is a scandalous situation concerning Irish Actors' Equity. I will declare my interest here because I am a member of three trade unions. Earlier today, Senator Ross claimed he was a member of a trade union, but I am member of three - the Irish Federation of University Teachers, the National Union of Journalists, and Irish Actors' Equity. We had an extraordinary situation in Irish Actors' Equity whereby the Competition Authority, mar dhea, coerced it into signing an agreement whereby it would not represent freelance actors. It signed an agreement that it would not even provide or share with any self-employed actor undertakings or information relating to minimum fees to be paid to other self-employed actors. What is going on here? It cannot publish a fees guide for freelance photographers or reporters either. In addition, where named musicians are being engaged, the Musicians' Union is prohibited from telling its members what is the going rate. That is farcical. The Minister of State should get stuck in and resolve the situation. These rights were enjoyed by Irish workers since 1901, yet the Competition Authority has seen fit to try to take them away.
This shames all of us because we are supposed to be a cultured country and we have contributed enormously not only to the culture of Europe but also of the world. However, the average overall payment for performing artists in specialised areas is €7,200 a year. Income from all theatre work is €10,000, while the rate for performing artists is €5,000. The Minister of State can read the figures in the report for himself. People are earning this pittance but it is nonsense to have the Competition Authority, which is a statutory body, stating that these poor devils cannot be told the going rate for a job. The Government should examine the matter.

Order of Business - 25th January 2006

The Order of Business - 25th January 2006
Mr. Norris: I would like to refer to the Order Paper and the fact that the last item among the papers laid before the House is the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution's Tenth Progress Report: The Family. The Order Paper also lists my Bill, namely, the Civil Partnership Bill 2004 which deals with one of the issues in this regard. I propose substituting an amended Bill in light of the debate we had on it.
I would like the House to take up this matter and run with it. I have lost all confidence in the Government's commitment to developments in this area. A farcical situation is developing in that gay people in Paisley's Belfast have more civil and human rights than gay people in Bertie's Dublin. If Sean O'Casey was around, the Taoiseach would be described as a prognosticator. I met the Taoiseach 18 months ago. Following that meeting, I thought we were on the way but he kicked the issue into the Oireachtas committee dealing with the family. Now we have its report, as well as the Law Reform Commission reports on this issue, but what is the response? We have a detailed examination and a clear recommendation to proceed along the lines my Bill has proposed, yet the Government is considering another commission, committee or think-tank to examine the situation. It is putting the matter on the long finger. We are being disgraced in Europe as one of the last states to deal with this issue. Catholic Spain has full gay marriage. I will not list the other states. Let us please get on with the job. I have done the work so let the Government live up to what its committee has recommended.
The Leader has been very positive, courageous and creative on the issue of the war in Iraq and the difficult subject of CIA renditions. Can she give us any further information on developments in this area and when the promised committee will be set up? The Marty committee has issued a worrying report. Senator Marty, the Swiss Senator chairing the committee, has clearly determined that there are more than 100 of these rendition flights over Europe and suggests that many European governments are aware of them but are turning a blind eye. Before Christmas our Human Rights Commission called on the State to inspect these flights. It is important that we examine this problem.
Senator O'Toole mentioned the troubled question of privilege and suggested that the only way to ensure accurate and safe information is to put it on the record of the House. I have the greatest respect for the staff of the Debates Office. They do an exceptionally good job, are very courteous, professional and helpful. They do, however, sometimes massage points a little, particularly when people like me attempt to speak Irish, which they render grammatical. While this is completely acceptable we need to consider the situation and give direction.

Mr. B. Hayes: Yes.

Mr. Norris: This may sound humorous but it is not intended to be. In the last week of the Dáil session the Ceann Comhairle said, "Ah for frig's sake, Enda". That was widely reported and broadcast by the media yet the comment does not appear in the Official Report because it was excised. A similar incident occurred in this House when a colleague of mine expressed concern about the high levels of adult "literacy". This was a mistake but I took it up and agreed with him saying things were frightful, people were not only learning to read but would shortly be able to write and eventually there would be Catholic emancipation. That never appeared in the Official Report because the reporter, the person in charge, decided it was too cruel.
I had a major battle about this incident but was not supported in this House. This is an important point. I do not blame the Debates Office which is very professional. We lack guts if we do not give direction and say it is all right to correct the grammar but we must have an accurate and faithful record, particularly as the proceedings are now broadcast on television and radio.

Order of Business - 15th December 2005

Order of Business - 15th December 2005

Mr. Norris: I join with my colleagues in calling
for a protest to be made about the statement of
President Ahmadinejad but if the protest is to be
made to the ambassador, we will have a difficulty
because he has disappeared. President Ahmadinejad
is somebody who is in touch with a different
reality to that with which most of us are in
contact. I saw him being interviewed recently and
he spoke about how, when he made a speech to
the United Nations — which, in fact, was in some
ways a very fine and interesting speech — he felt
that he was in the grip of some kind of holy emotion,
that a light came around his head and that
all the other ambassadors were frozen in their
seats. This is not the kind of reality that most of
us encounter, but it is what the President said.
I hesitate to come into conflict with my distinguished
colleague and friend, Senator Ryan,
but when he said the Iranian people used their
freedom to elect this man, he is incorrect. They
did not really do so because 98% of those who
put themselves forward for election were ruled
out by an unelected group of clerics. Therefore,
it was not really an exercise of freedom at all. If
an individual within Europe denies the Holocaust,
he or she will face criminal sanctions. We
should protest very strongly.
I strongly support Senator Brian Hayes’s
suggestion that we invite former taoisigh to the
House. There are five of them, Mr. Charlie
Haughey, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, Mr. Liam
Cosgrave, Mr. Albert Reynolds and Mr. John
Bruton. Furthermore, there are spaces for them
here on the Independent benches.
Ms O’Rourke: There are what?
Mr. Norris: If they came to the House, I would
welcome them and think it would be splendid
if
they sat——
Ms O’Rourke: I think Senator Brian Hayes
meant that they would address the House, not
stay for the day.
Mr. Norris: I genuinely think it is a good idea.
This was what the Senate was about in the
Roman period — wise old heads bringing their
experience to bear on politics.
(Interruptions).
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has made his
point.
Mr. Norris: I ask the Leader to ask the Minister
for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when he
proposes to examine the laws relating to consent.
He indicated that he was troubled, particularly
about a case which came before the courts
recently where a 19 year old boy and a 15 year
old girl engaged in consensual sexual activity and
the 17 year old was convicted of statutory rape.
The judge expressed surprise that the consenting
15 year old girl was not also before the court.
Now it transpires that their parents support the
two young people in their relationship. They have
now moved in together and have had a child.
That suggests to me that what I said a long time
ago should be re-examined. An age of consent is
always arbitrary and perhaps it might be possible
to examine the question of a principle
of consent in troubled cases
such as these, to be decided by a
judge. It is plainly a nonsense to ask why we did
not send the 15 year old girl to prison for having
sex with a man she eventually moved in with, and
whose child she is having. There were similar
cases in the United States. The Minister was right
to isolate this point and I ask the Leader to ascertain
when his proposals will be brought before
the House.