Order of Business - 16th February 2006

Order of Business - 16th February 2006
I draw the Leader’s attention to an issue I regret is once again missing from the Order of Business, namely, the proposed terms of reference for the Committee of Selection of the Seanad to inquire into the passage of CIA aeroplanes through Shannon Airport. I raised this issue at the end of November 2005 and on 6 December the Leader gave what seemed to be a clear commitment that the committee would be established. She had received advice from the Clerk and we were to have meetings to consider its terms of reference. We have had some such meetings but others have recently been cancelled at short notice.
I addressed my growing concerns in this regard to a number of Government sources yesterday and I now understand this committee is dead in the water. This is regrettable and I ask the Leader to explain, if it is true, why this is the case. Where did the pressure come from to prevent the establishment of such an inquiry? I hear the Government had some part in the decision, as well as local councillors from the Shannon area. It seems extraordinary that the Seanad should be run by local authorities rather than deciding its own business.
Mr. Callanan: That is democracy.
Mr. Norris: It is not democracy. It may be other Members’ understanding of democracy but it is not mine and I doubt it is that of the public.
Today we have another report from the United Nations committee which recommends that the Guantanamo Bay detention centre should be closed immediately. It will be dreadful if we allow ourselves to be compromised in this regard. It seems we have once more given into pressure. The Leader has been forthright on the issue of the Iraq war and gave a clear commitment in regard to this inquiry. We are entitled to know why it has been shut down, especially in view of the performance of this grey little Government that seems so intimidated by the United States authorities and even by councillors from the Shannon area.
The Government is clearly making a mistake in taking this action. The cat is already out of the bag given the establishment of a committee of the Council of Europe to consider the matter and the initiation of several court cases in Europe. This secret will out and the Government’s action seems very much like evidence of a guilty conscience. It is worried about something. Why should it be concerned about such an inquiry? The terms of reference were simply to establish facts.
A Senator: Nonsense.
It is not nonsense. Let us have a debate on this matter. Senator Dooley is nodding in agreement. Perhaps more Members from the Government parties will also agree. I thank Senator Dooley for his suggestion and formally propose an amendment to the Order of Business to allow us discuss the establishment of this inquiry and its proposed terms of reference, which have already been agreed. We received legal advice on the matter and know how to proceed and Members have been selected for participation. Let us have a debate on this today.
Mr. Mooney: I know Senator Norris’s question is directed at the Leader and I am sure she will reply. I am spokesperson on foreign affairs and have a particular interest in this area. Ongoing investigations into rendition are being led by Senator Dick Marty who is a colleague of Senators Bradford, Ormonde and myself on the Council of Europe. The European Parliament has also embarked on an investigation. The Government is co-operating with both investigations.
When this issue first arose, the Government, through the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, asked the American Administration about the possible illegal transportation of persons through Shannon Airport. The answer that was specific to Ireland initially——
Mr. Norris: It was a lot of lies.
Mr. Mooney: ——from Condoleezza Rice was that nothing illegal was going on.
11 o’clock
Mr. Norris: She knew that was not true and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, knew that was not true. It is a cover-up.
Mr. Mooney: In the context of the relations between Ireland and America, where the head or representative of a friendly nation makes such a definitive statement, which was subsequently made to the heads of European governments, then it would be not only churlish but extremely dangerous to the relationship between this country and America to turn around and indicate that somehow they were telling lies. In order to put in context what Senator Norris——
Mr. Norris: She admitted that they were using white noise, hooding and sleep deprivation.
An Cathaoirleach: Order please.
Mr. Mooney: If Senator Norris wishes to have a side-swipe at the good relations——
Mr. Norris: The Irish Government obtained a judgment on torture from the European Court.
Mr. Mooney: ——between Ireland and America, if he wishes to deprive the people of the Shannon area of jobs,——
An Cathaoirleach: We cannot have statements on the Order of Business. An amendment is proposed to the Order of Business and we will have to deal with that first. We cannot have a debate on the matter now.
Mr. Mooney: ——if he is prepared to put away the jobs and the interests of those in the Shannon area by having a go at the Government and by his constant anti-American stream——
Mr. Norris: So it is question of jobs versus torture. Now it is out in the open. That is very useful.
Mr. Mooney: If he wants to do that, I will not stand over it.
Mr. Norris: So it is a question of murky morality. Morality for sale Mr. Mooney.

Private Members Debate on Educational Services - 15th February 2006

Private Members Debate on Educational Services - 15th February 2006
I welcome the Minister to the House. I take it as given that we all appreciate the fact that she is a highly competent, intelligent, sensitive and good Minister. I am not partisan on this nor am I am as surprisingly politically naive as my friend and colleague, Senator Ross, if he imagines for one minute that the Government will accept a motion that refers to regretting the Government’s failure and the Minister’s procrastination and goes on to make demands.
Mr. O’Toole: They are mere words.
Mr. Norris: There are only words. However, I have managed this trick in the past but always when there was some degree of accommodation between the two elements. That is a good move but I do not see any realistic possibility of it in this case. Although Senator O’Toole has good relations, by and large, with the Department of Education and Science and the Minister, he is right to be critical because we need to keep the Minister and the Department up to the appropriate standard all the time.
Senator Minihan was kind in explaining the position to those of us who are numerically challenged, among whom I count myself. However, even I can detect that there are anomalies occurring but I accept that since the introduction of the budget, the Minister has managed to achieve an amelioration in the position.
I will give a number of examples. One is a recent survey carried out by the INTO which showed that some of the country’s most severely disadvantaged schools, instead of their pupil-teacher ratio improving, have suffered a decrease in the number of teachers because of the implementation of the new weighted system of allocation. I note the Minister is shaking her head, perhaps she has an alternative explanation. As reported it is a worrying development.
According to a report in The Irish Times today, the INTO has called for a freeze on job losses in disadvantaged schools pending the implementation of a new plan to tackle educational disadvantage. It indicated that a number of schools in the north inner city lost the equivalent of eight teacher places because of the implementation of this plan whereas on the south side there was a net gain of one teacher. It seems extraordinary that there should be this drain away from the areas that are most disadvantaged.
The Minister has heard me previously talk with some passion about the breaking the cycle system, about how good it is and that it should be continued all the way through primary, secondary and up to university level. According to the latest reports I have to hand, there is a drain away from the areas of greatest disadvantage because of the rigid application of a particular system. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that.
This position is highlighted and accentuated by the fact that we know from another survey - which was launched by the Minister and therefore I am sure she will comment on it - that 30% of children in poorer areas continue to have serious reading difficulties. This is broadly unchanged since the previous survey of 1999. If these two developments are taken together, in other words, if teachers are being taken away from the areas of greatest disadvantage in Dublin - the north inner city - because of the application the new system when we know that in those areas there is the greatest impact of disadvantage, in particular with regard to literacy skills and so on, the developing situation gives rise to concern. I do not want to carp at the Minister over this because she has done some good work. However, this anomaly needs to be addressed.
To compound matters, I will quote from a third report, from the Education Disadvantage Committee commissioned by the Minister. It states:
It was clear that there is a serious lack of ’joined-up thinking’ and ’joined-up action’ at both local and national levels in addressing issues of educational disadvantage. The committee has attempted to join up at least some of the ’dots’ on the map and to develop a coherent strategy for the future.
These are three areas in which there is criticism of the effect of the current policies, even taking into account that there has been an improvement in the average position. I am always a little suspicious when we have average figures because there may be one group of people who are advantaged to the disadvantage of another. When we get an average figure, we have to look for the anomalies because that is where the shoe pinches.
Another issue that needs to be addressed is the multi-ethnic element in schools. I welcome this and the very healthy attitude not only of the teachers but the pupils, which is an astonishing change since my time in school. Some 170 nationalities are now represented in the State. I want to record an example of that because it is a positive aspect. In Palmerstown community school there was a celebrated case of Olukunle Elukanlo. One of his classmates said:
We have guys from South Africa, Romania, Nigeria, in our class, but we’ve grown up with them and we don’t consider them in those terms. They’re mates.
That sounds like a good school to me if children come out of the school system with that attitude. Perhaps they have a lot to teach the adults. I could elaborate on the question of numbers because there are alternative figures which suggest we are still comparatively poor in terms of class sizes compared to the other European countries.
My final point, with which I am sure Senator O’Toole will deal because I will not have time to do so, is the question of special schools on which there is a debate. We need clear, firm policy on that area. I heard Olan McGowan, who is an extremely good broadcaster, speak the other night. He appeared to be against special schools because they put people in a ghetto, so to speak. These are very effective resources, however, if properly managed and we should not tie people into an either-or situation

Statements on Planning and Related Issues - 15th February 2006

Statements on Planning and Related Issues - 15th February 2006
I welcome the Minister to the House and will make some statements with which he will not agree, but he is a lively debater.
Mr. Roche: I would be disappointed if it were otherwise.
Mr. Norris: Perhaps we can reach some accommodation. I agreed with much of what Senator Ormonde said about the lack of accountability, openness and transparency in planning. I do not need to rub people’s faces in it but Members of both Houses are under a serious cloud because of the appalling corruption prevalent throughout local authorities in this land. That is an outrageous situation and one which abides. Planning is a very murky area, with nasty little things in the undergrowth. Sometimes there is a lack of transparency and accountability, at times it is more sinister and on other occasions it is just folly.
This Minister has been critical, sometimes in a disingenuous way, of An Taisce, a statutory body with particular functions. For political reasons there is an attempt to erode this body, which has operated responsibly, particularly with regard to the principles enunciated in the national spatial strategy. Politicians are great at enunciating great principles but the proof of the pudding is if they live up to them.
In some areas the national spatial strategy seems to have been almost entirely abandoned. One instance is a case raised by Senator Ormonde concerning one-off housing in the countryside. Senior planning authorities have warned that housing development is spreading throughout the greater Dublin area to an extent not envisaged by the spatial planning guidelines, accompanied by an increase in long distance commuting. The spread of housing development has made the provision of attractive public transport difficult. The consequent travel mode decisions lead to a car-based commuting pattern and increasing congestion.
By the very measure Senator Ormonde is praising we are defeating the main elements of the national spatial strategy. In this situation it is very difficult to plan for a coherent transport system. The overriding provision for sustainable land and transport planning in section 1.5 of the national spatial strategy states that “Ireland needs to renew, consolidate and develop its existing cities, towns and villages i.e. keeping them as physically compact and public transport friendly as possible and minimising urban sprawl”. This will not happen because of the relaxation of these guidelines.
Section 6.1.2 of the national spatial strategy 2002 states that objectives for:
...integrated spatial planning frameworks, including land-use and transportation elements, will be prepared and adopted by the local authorities or combinations of authorities responsible for the development of new gateways and hubs. Integrated spatial planning frameworks for existing gateways that are in the course of preparation will be completed and adopted.
Concerning transport, section 3.7.1 states “Ireland’s transport networks must ... ensure through building up the capacity and effectiveness of Ireland’s public transport networks, that increases in energy demand and emissions of CO2 arising from the demand for movement are minimised”. These objectives have not been met because of the issues Senator Ormonde helpfully raised.
People with a house outside a village seek traffic lights for one house. They are at risk but why did they build there? Half the time the lights, about which Senator Ormonde was so lyrical, are turned off because many of these houses are holiday homes that blister the west coast of Ireland, making it much less attractive from the point of view of tourism. People squawk when they are expected to pay for services where they are two miles from a settlement. They expect the taxpayer to pay for electricity and sewerage. I understand there is local pressure but let us be realistic. People who are effectively elected by county councillors form a strong lobby so let us be honest and declare our interest in these matters.
I have a series of concerns and I wish to illustrate two more, towards which the Minister will be sympathetic on one count. I hope to persuade him to be open-minded on the second. The first is the notorious failure of planning in Dublin but my second example relates to rural Ireland, to demonstrate that I am not too Dublin-centred. The Minister is aware of a dangerous situation in Gardiner Street, where a man posing as an architect designed a remodelling of two or three listed 18th century buildings. He built dormitory style accommodation for immigrants, which was absolutely illegal. He applied for retention and was being prosecuted by the local authority on the same day as it granted him planning permission to build an extension of this noxious development in the back yard. How coherent, transparent or accountable was that decision?
Mr. Roche: I have good news for Senator Norris on both counts.
Mr. Norris: Goodness, Minister, I always knew you were a man of extraordinary intelligence but I did not realise this extended to extrasensory perception.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris should address the Minister through the Chair.
Mr. Norris: The Cathaoirleach will be as delighted as I am to realise the Minister has the gift of prophesy because I had not mentioned the second case. If the Minister thinks it is the Standish Sawmills case, I will be very pleased if he provides good news on this. He and the Government have prevaricated on this matter on the numerous occasions I attempted to raise it in this House. I was told there was no ministerial responsibility and when I demonstrated that there was, the matter had become sub judice. The court lacks the capacity to enforce injunctions in this situation.
How can anyone respect the planning process when the ridiculous case of the Gardiner Street development exists, and is multiplied by ten in the case of Standish Sawmills? An excerpt from an article in The Irish Times of 26 May 2005 reads:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has decided to grant a new pollution control licence to T&J Standish Sawmills in Co. Offaly. The EPA said, however, that it would go ahead with a prosecution against the sawmills in Roscrea District Court this morning for breaches of the company’s current integrated pollution control licence.
These are continuing polluters, cocking a snook at the Minister and the planning authorities. This development was established without planning permission, farm animals have died, the water table has been affected, wells have been polluted and it is a gross visual intrusion on the outskirts of a national monument, Leap Castle.
Among the chemicals leeched from this plant are varieties of chromium, the very thing featured in the Hollywood film——
An Cathaoirleach: I must interrupt the Senator. It is now 5 p.m. and in accordance with the Order of Business I ask the Senator to report progress.
Mr. Norris: That is an extremely traumatic interruption.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris will have two minutes when this matter is resumed.
Mr. Roche: We will reflect in the meantime.
Mr. Norris: I thank the Cathaoirleach. May I state to the Minister in departing that it lies within his power to appoint an independent commissioner. He replied that it would require extraordinary circumstances. The circumstances in Standish Sawmills could not possible be more extraordinary.
An Cathaoirleach: I ask the Senator to report progress.
Mr. Norris: I apologise. I was enjoying the Cathaoirleach’s concert on the cow bell.
5 o’clock

Order of Business - 15th February 2006

Order of Business - 15th February 2006
I support my colleagues who have called for a further discussion on the tragic Stardust situation and I also support their compliments to RTE. I did not see the entire programme but I saw some of it. From what I saw, it seemed to me that they were talking not so much about new evidence but a new interpretation of evidence and the unearthing of the fact that certain evidence was missing at the time, which is very puzzling. That evidence included a list of items that were contained in a store room where the fire may have started, and the fact that electrical short-circuits were reported from that location.
That information was not referred to at the original tribunal, although it seems to have been crucial. We have further work to do in that regard. We owe it to the bereaved families and to the memory of those who were killed, to do so. It does not surprise me, however, that Mr. Butterly got his licence. I have never known a licence to be refused. We could re-examine how the licensing laws operate with regard to these facilities.
There has been a Cabinet reshuffle and we have a new Minister of State, Deputy Browne, in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.
There has been no Cabinet reshuffle.
Mr. Norris: Will the Leader arrange to have the new Minister of State attend the House to explain the policy on the fisheries Bill, particularly in light of a letter in The Irish Times of 9 February?
An Cathaoirleach: Senators will be discussing that Bill in due course.
Mr. Norris: I want the new Minister of State to attend the House as soon as possible and I wish to give the reason. The previous Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, contradicted things I said and gave assurances they were not so, yet these very things are included in a letter by Dr. T.K. Whitaker to The Irish Times. If my opinion is not respected, at least his will be. The letter stated that the Department’s quota system enabled it to limit the annual catch of wild salmon in line with scientific advice on conservation requirements, a responsibility it has failed to discharge. Dr. Whitaker said that if this is not done it will lead to the extinction of our salmon stocks.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator can reserve his comments until the legislation is debated here.
Mr. Norris: I am just giving reasons I think it is important for the new Minister of State to attend the House.
An Cathaoirleach: It is unnecessary to do so now.
Mr. Norris: His predecessor made a statement that is not sustainable in light of the argument made by Dr. Whitaker.
An Cathaoirleach: That is a matter for the forthcoming debate.
Mr. Norris: I agree with my colleague, Senator O’Toole, about the importance of having a debate on the anniversary of the 1916 Rising. I also ask for such a debate so that we can discover the Government’s plans for its commemoration. I have been contacted by a constituent who asked about the proposed budget to cover this military display and other celebrations of 1916. Can the Leader discover that information for me?

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs - 6th December 2005

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs:
6th December 2005
Motion by Senator David Norris on Foreign Conflicts.
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.
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 forthright];
(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.
Sentor 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 injuries caused to civilians. Deputy Mulcahy correctly expressed his abhorrence and discusses in the amendment the attacks on civilians, 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 attempts to conceal this fact. Reports in The New York Times which can hardly be described as an anti-American organ indicate that the attack on the hospital, for example, was aimed at stopping leaks about the number of civilian casualties. It is worrying when governments which claim to defend our ethos become involved in such practices and attempt to prevent information leaking out about them. Making these allegations against people intimately connected with this country is both serious and painful. As many of us have friends and relations in the United States, we are part of its system and share many of its values. 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 points to make. I accept that paragrah (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.
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 the airport has been used for no other purpose than rendition. Such flights have been condemned in a report from the Swedish Parliament because of the kidnapping of two people in Stockholm Airport who were rendered to Egypt where they were tortured.
Before she left the United States, the Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, stated the United States 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 a Gulfstream 5 jet had been used for rendition flights. Aeroplanes which regularly land at Shannon Airport have been used for the filthy purpose of extraordinary rendition — one should note the euphemism — for which the Government is liable under international criminal law. This is the advice given to a committee of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. The committee asked whether it would cause a legal problem if such an aeroplane 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. That is what we are dealing with and why I am so grateful to Deputy Mulcahy for raising the issue which I will pursue in the Seanad.
I welcome the excellent contribution made by Deputy Mulcahy but I am concerned we do not lose or blur the focus. While I welcome paragraph (a) of the amendment, I wonder whether it would be possible for the committee to come up with a composite motion which would cater for both sides. It is important to look at the way in which the Department of Foreign Affairs attempts to control the business of this committee.

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs - 20th December 2005

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs - 20th December 2005:
Shannon Airport: Presentations:
Mr. Norris: I salute the four witnesses. They behaved honourably, remarkably and wonderfully. They have done what our authorities should have done and significantly failed to do both politically and in regard to policing. I thank them, as an Irish citizen, for behaving the way they have. They have at least maintained some shred of integrity in this island. As Deputy Allen stated, they should not be hindered in taking photographs. I am glad they did because, clearly, the US is queasy about what it is doing and it is disguising the identity of the aircraft. As a result, a Minister misled Dáil Éireann by saying aeroplanes that had been named had not passed through Shannon Airport. Following an analysis of the material the alliance sent to me, I was able to demonstrate the US had changed the registration and the same aeroplane had passed through. Those aeroplanes are international pariahs and they are not accepted in many other countries. One of our European neighbours scrambled fighter jets to see them out of its airspace, yet Ireland cravenly allows the US to use ours.
I do not salute the behaviour of our authorities, which is contemptible and disgraceful. I would like the Chairman to withdraw the briefing note we received late this morning. It is an insult to the committee to be given such material. A number of allegations are listed and reference is made to repeated clear and explicit assurances from the US. Nobody believes the US authorities, not even their own people. A headline article in Newsweek last week laughed at and scorned European governments because of the ease with which they accepted the assurances from Condoleeza Rice. President Bush and Condeleeza Rice — and it pains me to have to say it — are confirmed, consistent and deliberate liars. They have lied and we know this perfectly well. Secretary of State Rice said the USA did not render prisoners to torture, but it has been proved repeatedly that it does, including proof by parliamentary committees in Sweden. We know prisoners are taken to Egypt. We may accept bland assurances from the American ambassador that what happens in Guantanamo is not torture, but that is a lie too. We should certainly not accept such assurances in this country as it was the State which took the United Kingdom Government to the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of the Castlerea interrogation centre. Practices at the centre which were found to constitute torture were hooding, sleep deprivation and the use of white noise. The assurance on Guantanamo is, we know, another deliberate lie.
Paragraph 3 of the Department’s briefing note states that the focus on the definition of “torture” incorporates a distinction which does not affect the assurances the Irish Government has received. It could not more materially affect it. According to the note, the USA assurances “state categorically that no such prisoners have been transported through Irish airports or airspace, nor would they be without the Government’s permission”. This is an evasion. Paragraph 5 says the Government is “completely opposed to the practice of ‘extraordinary rendition’. That such a practice might have the aim of delivering a prisoner to a jurisdiction in which he or she might be tortured or otherwise ill treated is disturbing and objectionable”. It is a hell of a lot more than that, it is criminal. The note states further that the Government “has not and will not permit any flight engaged in extraordinary rendition to pass through Ireland”. I demand that the document be withdrawn. It drags us into the lies. The Government has permitted at least one flight — but probably several — which was engaged in extraordinary rendition through the national airspace. The flight may not have been on the way out, but it was certainly on the way back and it means the statement that the Government has not permitted a flight “engaged in extraordinary rendition” is untrue. Chairman, I repeat my demand that the document be withdrawn The Government is attempting to create a situation whereby it can protect itself in international law by pretending not to have the requisite knowledge or mens rea. The best legal advice is that refuelling aircraft constitutes “facilitating criminal activity”. The contrary argument is that the accused party must know of the activity. How was it that the Government did not know given that the ordinary citizens in attendance today knew? I am an ordinary citizen who happens to be a backbench Member of Seanad Éireann and I know. Suspicions have been reported to the police. If the case was one involving drugs and the aircraft were vans which had been known to do nothing but transport cocaine and were found in the car park at Shannon Airport, the Garda would attend to the matter pretty bloody quickly. Why is the Garda not represented here today? I have written to Commissioner Noel Conroy to make my complaint and state my belief that a crime has been committed. In any other circumstance, the matter would be investigated. The briefing note continues:
In the light of the absolute assurances the Government has received, the Government will continue to follow the long-standing practice whereby details supplied to the Department of Foreign Affairs in this area by the US authorities are accepted in good faith as being accurate.
I do not so receive them. The document, which is supposed to be helpful and assist us, should be withdrawn as an affront to our intelligence.
We should be extremely grateful to the witnesses for collecting the invaluable information with which we have been presented. I hope the alliance will continue to collect information and make it available to us to enable us to continue these investigations. As a number of very important points, including specific, clear legal points, have been raised and teased out by Deputy Michael Higgins, I suggest we engage independent legal advice to establish what the position is under international law. Have the witnesses or their associates gathered information on the use of Baldonnel? There is media speculation, presenting itself as fact, to the effect that the CIA uses Baldonnel for rendition flights. The Department of Defence is sending bills for fuel to CIA shadow companies at post office boxes in central Africa. This is the extent to which our involvement may be miring us further in this appalling filth.
I salute the witnesses who are speaking out on behalf of the people, including an entire Christian family who were blown to smithereens in Baghdad when Bush tried to target Saddam Hussein by dropping a high impact bunker buster bomb down the chimney of a family home. What has happened in Iraq is appalling and the witnesses are among those who have stood up against it. I honour them for it and hope we maintain a positive contact with them

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs - 7th February 2006

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs - 7th February 2006
Overseas Development Aid: Presentations:
Senator Norris:I welcome the Minister of State’s interesting speech, in which he seemed able to combine the two functions of good cop and bad cop, or hard cop and soft cop, and indicated that there were moments when he would find it appropriate to deal robustly with the representatives of the Ethiopian Government. Some of the relevant areas have been outlined. I agree with my colleague that these include the killing of people during the turbulent situation and the imprisonment of parliamentarians, which is a matter that is always taken up by the Inter-Parliamentary Union in various countries throughout the world, as well as the changes in parliamentary structures and procedures made by the Ethiopian Government, which do not always operate to the advantage of democracy, a point well made by Senator Henry.
It is appropriate that we make our position clear in this area. I have been contacted by a number of groups and individuals, either Irish people with an interest or history of working in Ethiopia, Ethiopians or people who have undertaken academic research on the situation in Ethiopia. They all make pleas on behalf of what has been already described as a vulnerable population. The last thing we want is to further disadvantage people who are already very marginalised, as we know. We are well aware of the periodic famines which strike that country, its 1 million HIV orphans and the astonishing fact that just 82% of the population live on less than $1 a day - that is stark poverty, which we must acknowledge and respect.
The Minister stated, “No Irish aid monies go directly to the Government of Ethiopia via direct or general budget support”, a phrase I find interesting. I support the comment of Deputy Michael D. Higgins that the one way of controlling aid and making sure funding goes in the direction it is supposed to go is by requiring accountability and the publication of accounts, which is the least to which the Irish taxpayer is entitled. However, when the Minister states, “No Irish aid monies go directly to the Government of Ethiopia via direct or general budget support”, it seems almost as if this is a statement of principle and that this is a good thing and a way of ensuring the money is appropriately and properly spent. If, in this instance, the Minister of State regards it as a matter of principle and a good thing, generally speaking, why does this policy not extend to funding for Uganda, for example? I understand approximately €7.9 million has gone to Uganda in direct or budgetary aid despite Uganda being a country with serious question marks about its illegal military intervention in the Congo and its use of the natural resources of the Congo, such as minerals, diamonds and so forth. In light of the Minister’s statement about our funding not going directly in the Ethiopian case, will he comment on the parallel situation regarding Uganda?

Order of Business - 9th February 2006

Order of Business - 9th February 2006
Mr. Norris: I support my colleague, Senator Ryan, who has frequently reproved me for my Dublin-centred parochialism, in his Cork-centred parochialism. I refer him to the good book, with which I am sure he is familiar, and the text, “Put not your trust in princes”. The House has experience of commitments. I remember when the fracture of a commitment given to Senator O’Toole by a predecessor of the Leader was pointed out, the former Leader simply stated that the commitment was not absolute. Senator Ryan should be certain of the nature of the commitment he secures.
Mr. Norris: The use of mobile telephones in cars is already contemplated by the penalty points system, under which one can be given penalty points for using a mobile telephone while driving. I would like this penalty enforced because it is a spreading plague.
An incident last night marks an important development in gang warfare. It appears we are now confronted by the prospect of IRA mercenaries making their bomb making skills available to criminals in this city. It is fortunate no one was killed last night by an extremely nasty and professionally made device attached to a car. I sincerely hope we will not face car bombings and that the individuals in question will be hammered by the law. If new legislation is needed to introduce severe penalties against this type of gangsterism, I would support it.
I ask the Leader to examine the possibility of holding a debate on an issue she raised previously in the House. Some time ago, when it emerged that immigrants were forced to queue for many hours in the rain to get documentation, the incident was regarded as a disgrace. It is now happening again with migrants forced to queue all night to have visas stamped in order that they may remain in the State after visiting relatives abroad. A limited number of tickets are issued at the Garda office on Burgh Quay and people are seen on a first come, first served basis. People drive from Sligo, Galway and Limerick and start to queue outside the office which stamps the visas at 10 p.m. Last Friday evening, ten people were in the queue at 10 p.m. and were joined by a further 40 people by 7 a.m. The excellent newspaper, Metro Éireann, features a full report on the issue. We should not treat people who are legally resident here like cattle.

Motion on Road Network - 8th February 2006

Motion on Road Network - 8th February 2006
Mr. Norris: This issue has been around for quite a while and is a developing scandal. I am not interested in who is responsible and whether it was a Labour Party Minister who signed the agreement. We have a problematic situation and should address it. I raised this matter on 10 June 2003 as a result of an experience I had going through the toll bridge. At the time I said:
A recent journey took me across the West Link toll bridge. There are ten lanes through which vehicles may pass at the tollbooth. On the day in question, the first lane was closed, the next three were Eazy Pass only, no change was given at the next lane, the next two lanes were also Eazy Pass, there was a girl in the next lane putting money into a basket and the last lane had no markings. I went right across to the girl with the basket, but she would not give me any change. It may seem silly, but if every second person is giving 70 cent to National Toll Roads, it will make a huge amount of money. It has already swindled the people of Ireland by having its free run at the toll bridge extended. We should consider this matter.
I was not raising the parsimonious Protestant view that I was giving 70 cent to the owners of the toll bridge; I was also dealing with the question of safety. It was dreadful the signage was bad and I needed to zigzag across several lanes to get to the badly-marked toll booth.
As far as I am concerned National Toll Roads is buccaneering at this stage. It is shameless. It knows it is squeezing the people and it is arrogant and unrepentant. The demeanour of its representatives before committees of the Oireachtas is appalling. They simply dismissed us. All the time we hear about €10 million here and €5 million there and what it could be used for in our hospitals. Has NTR no conscience? What about the application to which the taxpayers’ money could be put if they did not have to waste all this money on these toll roads? The worst aspect seems to be the claim it is making that if the Government buys it out, under EU law it is still entitled to tender for the contract. We could buy it out, give it a present of hard cash and find it continuing to rob us. That is the unacceptable face of capitalism.
While I am not suggesting there are easy solutions, certain things could be done. For example, let us consider what was done in France. The national autoroute 6 going south from Paris has a large toll plaza for traffic in one direction and a few miles further down the road it has another plaza for traffic in the opposite direction. Why not use the existing West Link plaza for traffic in one direction and perhaps on the other side of the bridge have a plaza for traffic in the opposite direction, which would free the entire thing up.
Acting Chairman (Mr. Daly) The bell tolls for you now, Senator Norris.
Mr. Norris: I note the issue of the height of the bridge, which is so inane. If the bridge had been heightened to accommodate large trucks, it would have the option of banning them. Now we may have large trucks continuing to drive on the quays. I listened with great amusement to the announcement made jocularly on RTE the other day, which stated: “The Dublin Port tunnel was opened today at one end to let the water out”.

Order of Business - 8th February 2006

Order of Business - 8th February 2006

Mr. Norris: I support Senators Finucane and Ryan in their call for a debate on road safety, particularly in light of the NRA report. Senator Finucane is correct regarding the Northern Ireland situation. It should be quite an easy matter of adjustment to make it possible to include Northern-registered cars in our penalty points system. That is a very good, practical suggestion. There are also improvements that can be made domestically and locally. One of the reasons speed limits are not respected and are broken is that they are chaotic and incoherent. They do not deserve respect. There are motorways where speed limits change for arbitrary and capricious reasons, for example, and that reduces public respect.
There is also the issue of road surfaces. There were two desperately tragic incidents recently, one where a bright and talented young woman was killed in the west because the road surface laid by the local authority was flawed, the other where a school bus crashed for the same reason. We have our own house to put in order. In Germany, for example, driving lessons are a compulsory part of the school curriculum and that is something we should consider.
Senator Ryan also raised the question of immigration, which has become a thorny point in light of the new child care benefits. I spoke on child care in this House and was a dissenting voice among the chorus of demands for more money for parents. I made the point that there was a certain amount of sentimentality at play, as well as vote-buying. Today's newspapers report that queries to the Department regarding the new child care payment of €1,000, have increased from 20 per week to 200. Approximately 90% of the callers were Irish and the overwhelming majority wanted to know if the payment would coincide with the holiday period. I wonder how much the children will see of the €1,000 payment. This shows a level of materialism and selfishness in our society. I said as much during the last debate and was howled down in the Chamber. Then I went to the bar afterwards for coffee and my colleagues told me that I was right but they would not dare say so.
We have spoken recently about the issue of censorship in the light of controversial cartoons and so forth. We must also examine censorship in this country with regard to advertising for events, particularly of a political nature. I have received communication from people who had an advertisement broadcast once on RTE 1 radio. The advertisement itself was simple. It stated that AFrI and Front Line - two reputable organisations - were inviting the public to a conference entitled Shining Lights on Human Rights, at the Féile Bríde in Kildare town, featuring eyewitness accounts from the Niger Delta, Rossport, Darfur, Iraq and Shannon Airport. It went on to state that tickets and information were available by calling a particular telephone number. The advertisement was pulled because it was deemed to be political. That is too politically correct.
I recently attended the launch of a book called Guantanamo Jihad, held in the former St. Mary's Church, now a restaurant, on Mary Street in Dublin. The launch was moved from Kilmainham Jail because the authorities there were unhappy about the fact that some of the attendees would be wearing orange uniforms, similar to those worn by detainees in Guantanamo. Kilmainham Jail is one of our State operations.
We should not close down political debate. There are difficulties because pressure groups would want to put blunt political messages across. However, to pull advertisements for a meeting is an over-reaction. Citizens are entitled to information and we should examine this area.

Statements on Men's Health - 1st and 8th February 2006

Strategy for Men’s Health: Statements
1st February 2006

Mr. Norris: I welcome the Minister of State at
the Department of Health and Children, Deputy
Sea´n Power, to the House. I will have sufficient
time to finish a point which I believe to have
some practical application and which comes from
my own limited experience of hospitals.
I have had some difficulties with my prostate
which obliged me to be taken into hospital for an
examination. It is a fairly simple and routine
matter entailing the insertion of a fibre optic camera.
As one is knocked out for this procedure, I
thought it would be all right, would cause no
bother and so on. However, the insertion of such
a device into the urethra has a tendency to dislodge
germs. Moreover, particularly if the surgeon
fumbles somewhat or encounters some kind
of problem, it can also create bleeding. In a small
number of cases, this can lead to infection. I
ended up with septicaemia, an extremely serious
infection, was hospitalised for a number of weeks
as a result and was quite desperately ill.
4 o’clock
However, it is important that men know this
need not happen. I was informed that this happens
once in every 3,000 procedures. Consequently,
given the low incidence
level, antibiotic cover is not provided.
However, four or five of the
men in a gym which I attend in the centre of
Dublin have experienced exactly the same infection.
Hence, I believe the rate is considerably
higher than one in 3,000.
Septicaemia is very dangerous. It is extraordinarily
weakening, extremely painful and disorientating.
I went into a form of shock, my temperature
rose and fell repeatedly, I was unable to hold
the telephone and was half-hallucinating.
It is important that a patient discuss with his
doctor whether he or she thinks it appropriate to
get full antibiotic cover. Were I to have this procedure
again, I would insist on it. I should note
that I have had the procedure performed again in
experienced only mild discomfort. I am not sure
whether it a question of the skill of the surgeon
but I know that there is a serious risk in that
regard.
An Cathaoirleach: The three minutes are up.
Mr. Norris: If I may finish the point, I was not
encouraged on my way into the hospital by listening
to a radio programme which discussed the
prostatectomy operation and reported that
among the fairly common side affects were impotence
and incontinence. I am not sure how true
that is but patients need the truth.
I thank the Cathaoirleach for his indulgence. I
look forward to continuing the debate on the next
occasion because there are important issues to
raise, including testicular cancer. I also possess a
series of quite worrying statistics on the incidence
of prostate cancer and of mortality in this country
and I look forward to putting them on the record.
Minister of State at the Department of Health
and Children (Mr. S. Power): The Senator will
keep us in suspense yet again.
Mr. Norris: I am afraid so.
^ Strategy for Men's Health: Statements (Resumed). ^
8th February 2006
Mr. Norris: I welcome the Minister of State back to the House. It is somewhat confusing as I have been spread out like Marmite over the past few days. I was talking about prostate cancer, which is a serious problem accounting for almost 25% of male cancers. There has been an apparent significant increase in the incidence in the past ten or 15 years. That is partly related to higher rates of detection. It is very much to be welcomed, in particular the prostate specific antigen, PSA, test. This is a blood test taken once a year. I do it. It is very useful and all men in my age group, which is 60 plus, should take it because apart from anything else, this cancer has a tendency to increase in manifestation as one gets older. It is clearly age related. Very few cases are registered in men under 50. More than 60% of the cases occur in men over 70 years old and the largest number of cases diagnosed were in the 70 to 74 and the 75 to 79 age groups. Worldwide, 650,000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer every year. That is an indication of the significance of the problem.
The figures for Ireland are worrying. The latest figures I have show that in the totality of Europe, we are third highest in the mortality league. That is something that should worry all of us, particularly because there have been news reports on the matter and new information appears to be coming in all the time. Since I last spoke I have read newspaper reports which indicate that very little, proportionally, is spent on research into prostate cancer. That is something the Minister could examine profitably.
If we compare the shining example of women, who have had a campaign about breast cancer and research into breast cancer, although the incidence of these two cancers - one related almost entirely to women and the other exclusively to men - is very similar, breast cancer research is given five times the amount of money. I approve of money spent on research into breast cancer but a proportionate amount should also be spent on research into this form of cancer, which affects males only. Since 2000, €1.76 million has been invested in breast cancer research in Ireland while in the same period only €0.35 million was spent on research into prostate cancer. Our medical teaching hospitals and the medical faculties of our universities have had significant success in research into cures for illness. In my university, for example, one of my very distinguished colleagues was involved in the discovery of a cure for leprosy. A significant advance has been made in the treatment of blindness, retinitis pigmentosa. Comparatively small amounts of money spent on this kind of research can yield results that have a significant effect on people's health. In addition to the education campaigns, which I fully support, money must be put into research.
I would like to return to the question of the difference between men and women in terms of the way in which they regard their own health. Women regularly examine themselves; men do not. That is very important, particularly in terms of conditions such as testicular cancer, something about which we have heard virtually nothing. There was a veil of silence over this area and I would like to pay tribute to people like Ferdia MacAnna, who is a very popular figure in the entertainment world. He developed this cancer and wrote about it both in book form in his autobiography and also in mass circulation newspapers. That took a good deal of courage and it is something we should be grateful for because it alerted men to the possibility of this cancer, the need to be aware of changes in that area of the body including lumps and so on and to get early treatment because this form of cancer, like many others, is amenable to treatment if it is found early. Unfortunately, many men who find changes in the testicular area or a lump are embarrassed. They do not want to go to the doctor and ask about it. We ought to maintain an education programme to try to get rid of that false sense of shame because they will be much more worried, shamed and scared if they find themselves in a situation where they have to have radical surgery in that area.
Broadening out the debate on men's health somewhat, there is the question of the alcohol culture. I had a long argument with a friend of mine who is not from Ireland. He maintained that alcohol was part of the Irish culture. That is a very curious definition of "culture", particularly when one considers the way in which we drink. I do not believe in restricting people or playing the old granny in Irish society but young people should be educated about the dangers of alcohol and in that regard we should look at the drinks industry, which has a massive and extremely effective lobby. If we are serious about the health of our population, and specifically young men because they are disproportionately affected - the young are particularly affected - we should examine the way they are targeted by the drinks industry to encourage them to drink, particularly the question of sports sponsorship and so on. The Government had a report which indicated that sponsorship and advertisements for alcohol should be banned, particularly where it related to sport. The Government has not acted on that and if it is serious about health and men's health, that should be examined.
Suicide is a very severe problem in this country. Whereas it is always tragic when somebody takes his or her own life, there is a disproportionate concentration of figures at the lower end of the age spectrum. Once again, if one refines the examination further one will find a disproportionate number of young males commit suicide. We need to examine that and get some facts and figures. We have them, for example, for the United Kingdom and the North but we do not have any detailed figures. It would be useful if the Minister would ask for a report on what lies behind these suicides. I would say part of it is because of the changing role of men in society. Many young men are confused because they are getting conflicting messages. The alpha male syndrome, the idea of the man as a hunter-gatherer and so on, has been changed in a very positive direction but young men do not have the clearly defined role model they had previously and a number of them find that confusing.
Underneath that there is the question of sexuality. Despite the fact that we are bombarded as a society by sexually explicitly advertising and programmes to a degree that I, now that I am in my 60s, find astonishing, the level of intelligent sexual awareness has not increased and the Government has a responsibility in that regard in terms of education.
One of the most significant aspects is that in terms of bullying patterns in schools, for example, a total of 90% of bullying incidents included some degree of anti-gay message. That is an astonishing figure yet almost none of the schools has taken on board a fully comprehensive sexual education programme. I am not suggesting the promotion, for example, of alternative lifestyles or-----

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator has one minute remaining.

Mr. Norris: I thought I would not need all the time. I am like one of those gases - I expand to fill the space available.
There is a serious point to be made, namely, it would be useful if a mutual information pack about sexuality was available and classes were conducted in this area. That would give some reassurance to the 10% minority of school children who will inevitably turn out to be gay.
I apologise that the Minister of State was kept waiting for such a long time outside the Chamber but it was not just because of the extended Order of Business.


___________________________________________________________________________________________________

It was also because we were paying tribute to a beloved former colleague in this House, the late Senator Ruairí Brugha.
We were talking about road safety on the Order of Business, among other issues. I pointed out, as others have, that there is an opportunity to give young people driving lessons within the school context. Questions have been raised about insurance and responsibility, etc., but I am sure these matters can be sorted out because in Germany this is a compulsory part of the school curriculum. Imagine the impact this might have on the incidence of fatalities. I do not have the exact figures, but a high proportion of the people killed at weekends are young males who sometimes are on their own. There is even the suggestion that in a proportion of these cases, the accidents are not entirely accidental. This is a way some young people have of ending their own lives and it is very tragic.

Adjournment Debate on Defence Forces Property - 7th February 2006

Adjournment Debate on Defence Forces Property - 7th January 2006

Mr. Norris: It is a wonderful coincidence that the Minister of State present actually taught in the school as the head bottle washer. I am not sure if the Minister of State was in the Army. Perhaps he has some experience of the Army that would lend him to respond to this matter. Unfortunately, the Minister of State has indicated he does not.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Perhaps Senator Minihan could answer it.

Mr. Norris: Senator Minihan would be welcome to a minute of my time.

Mr. Minihan: I would be happy to answer the question for Senator Norris.

Mr. Norris: Senator Minihan would probably agree with me that armies, not just in Ireland but universally, have a horrible habit of being niggardly with ex-service people. After the First World War there were scandalous prospects of people who had been injured in that dreadful conflict playing the harmonica or begging for pennies on the street. I raised previously in this manner questions of Army pensions. There is also the scandal highlighted in the book written by a distinguished member of the staff of this House, Dave O'Donoghue, about the situation in the Congo where two people, whose reputations are still besmirched, have not had their gallantry recognised. I hope something will be done about that.
The case I raise today is a specific one. It is a question of the entitlements of a man who spent 34 years in the Army and had, as part of his occupation, the provision of housing in married quarters. This man is retired from the Army approximately 12 years but was allowed to continue living in the housing until the events of 23 November, when a fire broke out in the house. I have been in contact with the wife of this gentleman who told me she discovered the fire. She found her husband in a rather distressed state. Apparently, something had gone wrong with the wiring in the wall. A fire started, the television set and the curtains were ablaze and eventually the entire house was so badly damaged it could not be occupied.
The Army private was rescued with some difficulty by the fire brigade whose bravery I have to commend. They managed to get him out through a kitchen window. He was rushed to hospital and put on a life support machine on which he stayed for about three days.
I would point out that the month previously this man was in hospital recovering from three minor strokes, as a result of which he was forbidden alcohol and cigarettes and was put on a nicotine patch. I put that matter on the record because the informal response of the Army was to say that he was probably smoking a cigarette and fell asleep. That is not the case and there is much circumstantial evidence to show that the electrical wiring in the house was defective.
The private's wife indicated to me that she has had problems with the electricity virtually since day one. There were problems with the sockets and the fuse box. The Army sent electricians to the house on numerous occasions. The month before the fire she had them up to the house because all the lights went out. They had no electricity over an entire weekend. When the electricians came, they examined the fuse box in the hall and told her it was defective and needed to be replaced. To quote her directly, she said there was a wire burning straight across and that they would report this matter to the Army authorities. They never came back to her about it, however, and she was left with this defective wiring. The wiring in a number of the other houses was also defective. In addition, the electricians told her that the wiring had been installed incorrectly in the first place. In any event, the house was burned down and the husband is in hospital.
The wife and family then found that the Army simply refused to engage in any communication. They would not talk to her and she had to go to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. She and her family were put in bed and breakfast accommodation for six weeks. Is it not a bit shameful that the Army, having accepted responsibility for housing this man during his Army service, subsequently refused to communicate with this lady when a fire broke out in her house that was clearly as a result of defective wiring, to which the attention of the Army's maintenance department had been drawn, and allowed her to be put in bed and breakfast accommodation by social welfare? The family were put up there for an extra two weeks and after a further period were told they would have to go into a hostel for the homeless. This lady, her husband who is the Army private and a daughter, are staying at another daughter's flat and a further daughter is putting up another daughter in her flat. That is not satisfactory.
It is very important that these people be looked after. They had the accommodation during their Army period. They then had occupancy of the house for a further period of 12 years. There was a proposal that they should be allowed to buy out this house and they were agreeable to that, as were the other tenants, but apparently the situation was reversed and they were not allowed to buy out the accommodation. That appears to be a very niggardly way of treating somebody who was prepared to put his life on the line in defence of this country.
I ask the Minister of State to take a compassionate view of this matter and do something for these people. It is not appropriate that somebody who served without a blemish for so many years and brought up his family on the kind of meagre wages they got in the Army should have this support struck away from him and be expected to live in a homeless hostel. It is a reproach to all of us and I look forward to the Minister of State's reply.

Mr. Killeen: The Minister for Defence thanks Senator Norris for raising this matter, as I do. The Department of Defence was made aware on the morning of 23 November 2005 that a fire had occurred at one of the married quarters located at Cathal Brugha Barracks in Dublin, which was occupied by a former member of the Defence Forces. The married quarters in question comprises one of 12 quarters constructed in 1982 by the National Building Agency. It is at ground floor level with a second married quarters located overhead.
The Dublin Fire Brigade attended the scene, assisted in the evacuation of the quarters and extinguished the fire. Gardaí from the Rathmines district also attended at the scene and have since furnished a report on the matter. That report, as well as one from the Dublin Fire Brigade, indicated that the fire resulted from a discarded cigarette butt in the occupant's bedroom. The Minister understands that the occupant's wife and daughter were also in the premises at the time. Fortunately, there was no loss of life but the occupant was taken to hospital suffering from the effects of smoke inhalation together with slight injuries.
An initial cursory inspection of the property by the Department's properties officer and the barrack foreman of works at Cathal Brugha Barracks indicated that the fire had totally destroyed the quarters internally and indicated that before being fit for occupation, total refurbishment would be required. There was no damage to adjoining or overhead properties. The military authorities were asked to furnish an architectural-structural assessment of the extent of the damage to the property. The Minister understands that the corps of engineers has completed an inspection of the quarters and the cost of repairs is estimated to be in the region of €95,000. The occupant is a former member of the Permanent Defence Force, has been residing in married quarters since 1977 and has occupied the subject quarters in Cathal Brugha Barracks since July 1982. He was discharged from the Permanent Defence Force in July 1982 and had been overholding the property since 17 July 1994. Personnel, on being discharged from the Permanent Defence Force, are obliged to vacate married quarters within a short period from the date of the discharge. Overholding arises where members of the Permanent Defence Force who have been allocated married quarters, are discharged from the force and fail to vacate. The provision of housing is primarily a matter for the local authorities and married personnel have an equal claim to other members of the community in the same income category.
While it was the policy in the past to augment the measures taken by local authorities where soldiers' needs were exceptional, married quarters for members of the Defence Forces have for some time now been considered an anachronism and it has been the policy of the Department to discontinue them in a managed and orderly manner.
Since 1988 it has been the policy of the Department to sell off married quarters located outside of barracks. Such quarters are offered to occupants on terms similar to those contained in the local government tenant purchase schemes. In 1997, the married quarters located at CathaI Brugha Barracks were offered for sale to the occupants. There are a number of layout and structural design issues associated with them, especially common shared elements, for example, waterpipes, services, access to attics, common green areas, etc. All 12 quarters must be sold in view of their shared services design.
At that time it was made known that the quarters would only be sold if all of the occupants agreed to purchase. Notwithstanding declarations by the occupants of intent to purchase, doubt existed from the outset as to their financial ability to purchase the quarters. The Chief State Solicitor's office advised that the Department would not be under any legal obligation to accept any offers from any of the other occupants in the event of one or more of them choosing not to purchase.
The married quarters are surrounded by private housing built on land sold by the Department some years previously and connected to that development's sewerage system. The services of that development, including water supply, roads, footpaths, public lighting and green areas have not been taken in charge by Dublin City Council and are currently the responsibility of a private estate management company. Such services relating to the married quarters, if not taken in charge by the city council will be integrated into the adjoining private development and will need to be taken in charge by the estate management company, subject to a negotiated agreement between all the parties involved. It has not been possible to proceed with the sale of the quarters pending resolution of the difficulties surrounding the shared elements and services. The remaining 11 quarters are occupied and the Department is continuing to explore possible solutions to this intractable Issue.
As already indicated, the provision of housing is primarily a matter for the local authorities and married personnel have an equal claim on such housing as other members of the community in the same income category. The Minister understands that the community welfare officer was in contact with the family immediately following the fire regarding their welfare needs, including accommodation and, in this regard, had also spoken to the Department's properties officer.
Members of the family have also been in touch with the Department. The Department has, in turn, been in touch with Dublin City Council, offering to provide any information or clarification it might require as regards any application it might receive in regard to accommodation for the individual in question, together with his family.

Mr. Norris: I thank the Minister of State for reading the script. I do not put the responsibility for this case at his door. However, I hope it goes back to the relevant authorities that this is a very legalistic performance. The script says that they were phasing out married quarters and these people were caught up in this, accidentally. I have no wish to cast aspersions on the forensic capacity of the Garda Síochána. However, there is an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence to suggest that the fire was unlikely to have been caused by a cigarette. They would not have found a cigarette butt in a conflagration such as that, so there is no direct evidence there, I would think, but I do not know. In addition, there is a succession of evidence to suggest that the wiring was faulty. There were constant complaints, so there is that argument at least. In any event it is relevant.
Here were people who occupied these quarters in a type of grace and favour situation. The Army was phasing it out and this accident was more or less used, accordingly. I agree with the Minister of State who said, thank God, that there was no loss of life. Will they please organise a meeting with this family? I should be prepared to act as facilitator or whatever, if that is thought to be appropriate. It is not right to dump these people on the side of the road to let them fend for themselves after the years of service. In terms of real human wastage, this problem will revert to the Army eventually. To opportunistically take advantage of a fire in order to get rid of people from a house is not a very enriching view of military life. I strongly reiterate my appeal to the Department to look again at this situation and try to do something for this decent family which has given service to the State, was provided with housing and is now left without it.
I am shocked that anybody might regard it as appropriate that a soldier who has served a long time and who, having had this facility, should be left with his family to fare for themselves in a homeless hostel. That is not right. No amount of legalism can make it right. I look forward to a meeting being arranged.

Mr. Killeen: I will refer the matter to the Minister for Defence.

^

Order of Business - 7th February 2006

Order of Business – 7th February 2006

Mr. Norris: I agree with Senator Ó Murchú. It is a serious situation. This started in September and was a slow burning fuse. It would have been helpful if there had been a positive intervention, the type of dialogue Senator Ó Murchú mentioned, at an earlier stage. I doubt that the editor of the small provincial newspaper thought that a couple of lines of ink on a piece of paper would lead to destruction and the death, so far, of at least seven people. I do not believe this couple of squiggles is worth the death of a human.
Unfortunately, the activities of certain sections of Muslim society, particularly in the Middle East, have tended to confirm some of the message in the cartoon. In other words, there can be a relationship between this cultural system and violence, a tendency that must be countered. However, it is understandable. The West has rained bombs down on the unfortunate people of Iraq. These people have been given no voice and they and their religious views have been treated with contempt. They simply have not been heard, even in newspapers in this country.
I have read some very inflammatory articles that simply put all Muslims in the same situation. When people are squeezed and oppressed in that way, this is just a catalyst. It lets out an energy that already existed. It started in a very out-of-the-way place but I could not help thinking of an obscure incident in Sarajevo in 1914 which led to events nobody could stop. It did not seem possible that the world would be convulsed. This could happen again but I hope it does not. The Danes will see their dairy industry in considerable financial difficulty.
We must also be aware that our values should not be compromised. It is not tolerable that people such as Theo van Gogh or Salman Rushdie should be subject to threat. Freedom of expression is an important value. Again, however, we must understand how people are pressurised. Western values have been represented by big firms such as Coca Cola, Pepsi, McDonalds and so forth and the materialism of the West is eating into a very spiritual side of oriental culture. Naturally, the people are discomfited by it.
Can a debate be arranged on the licensing laws? I have been concerned about this issue for some time, particularly the licensing of small shops, petrol stations and so forth. Members will be aware of the report in The Sunday Tribune last Sunday where 20 of these outlets were investigated by an under-age female reporter. In 18 of the 20 outlets she was served without question. She bought wine, whiskey, beer and whatever she wanted. This is a serious issue. It would be wrong and dangerous to blame the Judiciary for this but we, as legislators, should examine the situation to ascertain the best way to regulate the licensing of the drinks industry in this city.

Statements on Northern Ireland Issues - 2nd February 2006

Statements on Northern Ireland Issues – 2nd February 2006

Mr. Norris: I agree with the distribution of bouquets
on which my colleagues have embarked but
I would also give bouquets to the Minister for
Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, for his
determination in the matter, to Dr. Garret
FitzGerald and to Mr. Albert Reynolds, who
played a crucial significant role. I would also
include even Mr. Blair, whose blundering bull in
a china shop attitude towards Iraq is such a contrast
trast
to the progress he has made on Northern
Ireland.
On what the Minister said about the transition
to a political solution, I absolutely agree. He said
that the IRA’s move away from military activity
must be sustained but it is up to us to encourage
that by welcoming rather than begrudging the
imaginative way in which the move has happened.
I certainly welcome the move. The Minister also
referred to loyalist paramilitaries, which I believe
are a real problem. There has been a drop-off to
virtually nil in things such as punishment beatings
by the provisional movement but the same is not
true of the loyalist paramilitaries. As one who
comes from a Unionist background in this part of
the country, I condemn and deplore what is being
done by the loyalist paramilitaries, who are
neither loyal nor Protestant or Christian in any
sense. They stand roundly condemned.
The reinstatement of democratic rule through
representative institutions in the North of Ireland
is important. It is interesting that politicians on
all sides are hungering for that but it is curious
that the voters, I gather, do not really care any
more. That needs to be addressed, because it is
important that the institutions are reinstated. One
way in which we could help that is by living up to
our obligations on cross-Border co-operation. As
Senator McHugh highlighted last week, the
extension of the railway line from Northern
Ireland to Letterkenny was suggested by the British.
We should also push co-operation of that sort
as well.
I note the disjunction between the IMC and
General de Chastelain. I am not a conspiracy theorist,
but I point out that several newspapers
remarked on the fact that the information, which
was a bit vague, was supplied by the PSNI and
MI5. To my mind, that puts a question mark
over it.
It is interesting that the DUP has come up with
the idea of a shadow Assembly. That should be
explored. I very much welcome the fact that Jeffrey
Donaldson and other such people whom I
regard as very dour come down here to appear
on “Questions and Answers” where they have an
opportunity to experience at first hand the audience’s
response. I am sure it is good for those
politicians to hear people with strong Dublin
accents take a view that is not entirely dissimilar
to their own.
On the issue of whether the paramilitaries are
like the Mafia, I have said for a long time that
the similarities are obvious. The Mafia emerged
from a similar background in which people who
had fought for the rights of the oppressed then
entered criminality. A real problem is that
middle-aged people who have spent their whole
life in an aura of excitement in which they have
been involved in bank robberies and so on were
presumably paid from some central source. If that
source is just cut off, what do those people do? I
think we need to bite the bullet and make some
accommodation by, if appropriate, bringing them
into some kind of policing role or make allowance
for some kind of payment to them. I do not know
how, but those people will need to be weaned
away.
Acting Chairman (Labhra´s O´ Murchu´ ):
Senator Norris has one minute remaining.
Mr. Norris: I believe the situation is generally
pretty hopeful but progress will be gradual. It is
significant that DUP representatives regularly
appear on our airwaves to discuss, in a way that
is not notably hostile, serious political issues with
Southern politicians. That is the way forward and
I am glad to live in a time when such an historic
shift is taking place.

Order of Business - 2nd February 2006

Order of Business – 2nd February 2006

Mr. Norris: I welcome the remarks of Senators
Brian Hayes and Mooney on the Shot at Dawn
Campaign and congratulate them on raising it in
the appropriate forum, namely the British-Irish
Interparliamentary Body meeting. They have
done some extremely important work. I must
take an assertiveness course, because I raised this
issue first. I raised it consistently over——
Mr. B. Hayes: My apologies.
Mr. Norris: It does not matter. The most
important thing is to get something done about
it. As I have noted previously in the House, the
New Zealand Government really put this issue on
the agenda. It not only exonerated its own troops
but honoured them publically. These poor creatures
were slaughtered for reasons like refusing
to put on a wet filthy cap in the middle of a bombardment.
It was a disgrace and a vile thing to
happen.
This is cystic fibrosis week. It would be useful
if this House discussed this issue for a number of
reasons. I feel strongly about the matter because
I have encountered a number of people with the
condition. For example, I had an extremely
remarkable, charming and intelligent student in
Trinity College who greatly impressed me and
who continued with her work despite her great
difficulties. I have known a number of people
with this tragic and awful disease and they are
gentle, decent people. This country has the highest
rate of cystic fibrosis anywhere, and one in
116,000 live births has this problem. While in the
North of Ireland, the average life expectancy of
someone with this condition is 34 years, in the
Republic, it is 17 years. Why is this? Surely when
we have this problem in our midst, we should
direct our energies, resources and facilities
towards it. We should conduct research and be
the world leader in this respect. I would welcome,
perhaps in the context of a debate on health
issues, the House pressing for such people to be
given a decent opportunity of life. Many initiatives,
such as the provision of isolation units could
be taken. However, I will not anticipate the
debate.

Motion on Child Care Investiment Programme - 1st February 2006

Motion on Child Care Investiment Programme – 1st February 2006

Mr. Norris: I wish to share my time with
Senator Henry.
Mr. Norris: Members have just witnessed a
fairly unedifying spectacle. However, it is to be
expected because we are in the run up to an election.
All the parties, along with some of the Independents,
are trying to offer more to the electorate
and accuse others of racism and
xenophobia. It is all totally and pathetically
irrelevant.
It is perfectly obvious that this House is being
used. I was astonished to receive the preliminary
Order of Business and to find that Private
Members’ time was occupied by this motion,
which was signed by the Department of Health
and Children rather than by the Government.
This is not the intended purpose of this House.
Motions should be generated by Members and if
the Government Members do not have the wit or
imagination to so do, the time should be handed
over to those who do. It is about time that everyone,
including Ministers and all parties, treated
this House with a little more respect.
I take an unpopular view of the child care issue.
Obviously, I believe that children should be cared
for. They are vulnerable people whose educational
and welfare needs must be met and the
State has responsibilities in this regard. However,
I am sometimes astonished by the claims made in
newspapers. I read interviews with people who
have two cars, foreign holidays, a big new house
and two children, who want the taxpayer to
produce money for them to have more. They
should not get it.
I make a serious point when I state that this
tiny planet faces a cataclysm of overpopulation.
While I have been making this point for years,
eminent scientists now state the same thing.
Instead of providing people with tax incentives to
have more children, I rejoice in population
decline. I include Europe, where people caterwaul
about the decline in population, and am
delighted the population is dwindling somewhere
on the planet, particularly in those countries
where the ecological footprint is proportionately
much more disastrous.
We should think of this issue in a global context
and not simply in terms of electoral advantage,
without considering it fully. Since I left
school, the population of this planet has doubled
and it will increase by another 50% within 25
years. We simply cannot cope. The global icecaps
are melting and the appalling problem of overpopulation
lies behind resource wars, hatred and
struggles. As a human and, I hope, a humane person,
I have no dislike for families or children.
However, they should be born into situations
where they are genuinely cherished.
The Minister’s speech rang with money. Are
we getting good value? I know the Minister and
he is a decent and caring family man. However, I
have heard the most astonishing amounts, such as
\20,000 or \40,000, as examples of what people
are obliged to pay to keep a couple of children in
a cre` che. Why do they pay so much? If one has a
number of children in a cre` che, where does this
enormous sum go? Has anyone conducted a cost
benefit analysis to establish what is the most
efficient way of spending money?
As a matter of principle, people should be
encouraged to have two children only. It is in the
planet’s interest. While I am 61 years old and will
be gone before we are drowned by the melting
icecaps, if the other Members have any real vision
of what they are getting their children into, they
should take this issue seriously.
The question of child benefits has been turned
into a issue of racism or xenophobia. Xenophobia
is almost as bad as racism. It means “fear of foreigners”,
from the Greek. I hope we do not have
an unjustified fear of foreigners. Certain groups
appear in every race and we should not accept
anyone, simply because they are Polish, Yugoslav,
black or whatever. We should consider
people’s quality. If this money is being granted, it
should also go to such children, who are still children,
whatever their origin. However, I want the
payments to be monitored to ensure that the
money goes towards the children’s welfare. The
taxpayer is entitled to know that this is the case.
I have a point about the wonderful notion of
“family” about which I have been preached at for
so long. I agree that the family, rightly regulated
and filled with love and mutual respect is a wonderful
institution. However, in this regard, where
is it now? Will people not take any responsibility
for their children? I have heard programmes on
the wireless in which people stated that the children
would be cared for by their extended family
and grandparents and then asked who would pay
the grandparents. While I am becoming a grumpy
old man, I have a certain amount to be grumpy
about. Why should the taxpayer pay people to
look after their children’s children? Everyone
appears to want money. I do not have children. I
do not want children, because for reasons with
which I will not burden this House, it is unlikely
that the kind of activities in which I occasionally
and sporadically engage will generate children.
Acting Chairman: Is the Senator sharing his
time?
Mr. Norris: Yes. How long remains?
Mr. Minihan: The Senator is sharing more than
his time.
Acting Chairman: Senator Norris has two
minutes remaining.
Mr. Norris: Very well. If I had children with
someone I loved——
Mr. Minihan: He shares his time in many ways.
Mr. Norris: —— I would want to spend as
much time with them as possible. I would prefer
that to commuting in the car. What of the plight
of the children of refugees and asylum seekers? I
heard a radio discussion on this point today and
they are expected to survive on \9 per week, even
to buy nappies. We should consider the entire
picture and not indulge in an election fest.

Order of Business - 1st February 2006

Order of Business – 1st February 2006

Mr. Norris: I welcome the fact that we have
extended the time, which I have been seeking for
some time. I am now happy to withdraw my
motion on the matter.
Ms O’Rourke: The Senator has a great record.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator, without
interruption.
Mr. Norris: I am pleased to learn that the Minister
for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin,
made proposals which are warmly welcomed by
Professor Fottrell to double the number of medical
places in universities throughout the country,
which is very important. I hope these persons
who were pinched, as in the cases brought before
the House by Senator Henry and I, will now be
treated with some leniency.
I support Senator Ryan’s comments about
trade unions. It is a pity it was left to a British
member of parliament to take up the case of the
woman in Dunnes Stores who was got rid off
because she, as a shop steward, wore her badge.
That was not right. In light of Dunnes Stores’ disgraceful
history regarding its women workers
who stood out against apartheid, it should have
been a little more sensitive.
I ask that we have a debate on the Government’s
plans, whatever they are, to commemorate
1916. It is important we do so because the
Government launched this notion at its party’s
Ard-Fheis. It is a matter of national importance.
This needs to be discussed particularly in light of
the comments of the President a few days ago. I
found her comments very regrettable. She made
references to the Kildare Street Club and to a
small elite governing the country. She described
them as narrow and sectarian. This was not
helpful.
Mr. Leyden: It is not appropriate to comment
on what the President said.
Mr. Norris: She showed a complete lack of any
historical understanding whatever——
An Cathaoirleach: Order, please.
Mr. Norris: ——and the material she embarked
on was very contentious. In view of the fact that
the strategy of Fianna Fa´il——
An Cathaoirleach: No, Senator——
Mr. Norris: ——is to try to capitalise on this
matter for itself in order to outflank Sinn
Fe´in——
An Cathaoirleach: That matter is not in order.
Mr. Norris: ——and that the President is a
Fianna Fa´ il candidate, it looks as if——
An Cathaoirleach: It is not appropriate to comment
on statements made by the President.
Mr. Norris: ——wittingly or unwittingly she has
allowed herself to be co-opted onto the Fianna
Fa´il——
Dr. Mansergh: She is Head of State.
Mr. Norris: It is very offensive——
An Cathaoirleach: Order, please.
Mr. Norris: ——and most regrettable.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is out of order.