Statements on the Shot at Dawn Campaign - 28th March 2006

Statements on the Shot at Dawn Campaign – 28th March 2006
Mr. Norris: I wish to share time with Senator O'Toole and perhaps with Senator Ross, who may have an opportunity to join us.
I welcome this discussion and express my admiration for the work done by Senators Mooney and Hayes. Until quite recently, I was not aware of the considerable body of work they have been doing through the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body, which is a very useful forum in which to do such work. I have raised this issue on a number of occasions in the past because I was contacted by the Shot at Dawn Campaign, initially by the British campaign and also by Mr. Mulvaney and his group in Ireland. They have produced a most excellent, heart-rending and moving briefing.
I listened carefully to the Minister's speech and was glad to note the generous comments by the late Taoiseach, Mr. Seán Lemass, of which I was unaware. That is very important and to be welcomed. The Minister also said that the soldiers had the highest possible motivations for enlisting and that is true, to a certain extent. However, some of the Irish men, most poignantly, were motivated by sheer poverty. People joined the British army because there was damn all else for them in this country. Having come from such conditions and to then be treated in the manner in which they were by the British army, is absolutely shameful and an attempt to dishonour them.
Senator Mooney is a much more Christian person than I am, which I have known for a long time.

I have no problem criticising the then British Government and the officer class. Both richly deserve that, even though my father fought in First World War, was heavily decorated and among others was awarded the Lloyd's medal, colloquially known as the marine Victoria Cross. As a small child I recall him being horrified by these events. So many of the people who fought valiantly on their side disassociated themselves from these events.
The Minister refers to the men being executed. In my opinion, they were murdered; it was nothing less than judicial murder. Anthony Babington, for example, indicates no due process was involved. It was a drumhead court martial, where the soldiers were unrepresented and did not even have a prisoner's friend. They were alone, often ill, shell-shocked, disturbed when brought up before these cursory procedures to be then taken out and shot. It was done as other Senators stated, as exemplary justice. Pour encourage les autres or, as was more the case, pour décourager les autres.
Leonard Sellers in his work For God's Sake Shoot Straight stated:
It was a great shock when I opened the file listing details of executions in the Great War. What I found amazed and deeply troubled me. There were names, ages and details. I discovered that they were so young, so vulnerable and so alone...In only three cases did the prisoner have the benefit of a prisoner's friend. These young men, on trial for their lives, went before their superiors without legal representations or assistance. The knowledge of this is horrific, and has deep implications.
It is inappropriate for the British Government to procrastinate on the matter. It is easy for it to use the case of Mrs. Harris, the daughter of Private Harry Farr. Why is the British Government appealing the case? It must acknowledge that a gross injustice has been done as Ireland, Scotland and New Zealand have. The New Zealand Government not only issued a retrospective pardon but re-issued whatever medals those shot had won. There should be some similar appropriate measure from our Government.
I am glad to learn a friend and former colleague from the English department in Trinity College, Dublin, Dr. Gerald Morgan, has adopted five of these Irish soldiers at a ceremony near Lichfield in Staffordshire. He has suggested a small but dignified memorial to salute the human experience of these men should be erected at Islandbridge. They are part of the tragedy of the First World War. Some part of that has been achieved by the recording of their names. It is shocking to learn their names were not even dignified by being recorded but dishonoured.
It is important that what these soldiers went through is recognised. Shell-shock is a real condition. I remember one gentlemen in the choir at Christ Church Cathedral suffered from it. I will conclude with a quote from Wilfrid Owen's poem Dulce et Decorum Est.
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, ...
...My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.
We owe it to these tragic victims.

Order of Business - 28th March 2006

Order of Business – 28th March 2006

Mr. Norris: I thank Senator Brian Hayes for raising No. 23 on the Order Paper

regarding the child abuse victim from Cork. I am pleased that both Fine Gael

and Labour Party Members signed the motion but, on the basis of my contacts

with Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats Members, everybody feels the

same way, whether they are at liberty immediately to put their names to the

motion. The woman was a victim and she took an important case very

courageously. She illustrated a principle in law, which will be helpful.

Normally one does not go after people in those circumstances and mulct them in damages or legal costs. This woman has two small children. We hear a great deal about cherishing all the children of the nation equally and it would be awful if a decent woman found her home was sold over her head. I hope the Leader will have something positive to contribute in this regard.
I welcome the fact the European Commission appears to be about to act on roaming phone charges. It is iniquitous that people who answer calls when they are abroad are charged. This is wrong and I hope the Government will follow up on it.
I agree with Senators Brian Hayes and Tuffy that the shooting on the M50 is an appalling business. It is apparent these people were expecting it because they were wearing bullet-proof vests. The driver had just been released from hospital after a previous shooting. The situation is getting like that in Chicago in the 1920s. I remember as a child going to see films such as "The Rise and Fall of Legs Diamond" and the "The St. Valentine's Day Massacre" and because they were in black and white and the bloodshed was all cosmetic, we found them great entertainment. Now, Chicago would be a safer place than Dublin. The kind of activity seen in those films has taken root here. I would support whatever measures are necessary to curtail this horrendous activity.
I mentioned the idea of cherishing all children of the nation equally. A phone call came to my office a few days ago from an elderly lady who would not give her name or telephone number because her husband would be upset and ashamed if he knew attention was brought to the matter. This woman wanted the Oireachtas to be aware that people like her and husband who live on very low incomes - all she had was the non-contributory pension - are very glad that the cold weather spell seems to be over because they had such difficulty in keeping themselves warm. We need to realise that elderly people who live on minimal State support are in difficulty. We used to have a fuel supplement or subsidy and I wonder if it still exists.

Senators: It is still there.

Mr. Norris: That information should be made known as widely as possible. Sometimes people are ashamed to take up such subsidies because they think they are getting something for nothing. They are not. We should encourage all elderly people with this difficulty to take what is their due in terms of allowances and fuel vouchers.

Ms. O’Rourke: He also raised the matter of Louise O'Keeffe from Cork. I will reply to this question when responding to Senator Norris because he and the Independent Senators tabled the motion. Senator Brian Hayes, however, is right to associate himself with this motion.

Senator Norris mentioned Louise O'Keeffe from Cork. Ms O'Keeffe has contacted me several times, as no doubt she has contacted other Senators. When I called the Taoiseach's office his adviser told me that Ms O'Keeffe wanted to persuade the Minister for Education and Science, and the State Claims Agency to waive their rights to collect these costs. I understand that neither the Department nor the State Claims Agency will move to collect their costs to date.

Mr. Norris: Good.

Ms O'Rourke: That is helpful but I was told to say clearly that this refers to the costs to date.
Senator Norris also spoke about roaming telephone charges, and compared the M50 shoot-out to events in Chicago in the 1920s. He said that the cold spell which lasted longer than normal affected elderly people. This could return. Somebody else also said we should have an enhanced fuel allowance.

Order of Business - 23rd March 2006

Order of Business - 23rd March 2006
Mr. Norris: Like everyone else in the House, I welcome the ceasefire announced by ETA. I salute the work done by people like Fr. Alec Reid, of which I learned this morning on the radio. However, before we cover ourselves in congratulations that the Irish model was followed in the ceasefire, we should reflect on the fact that at the beginning of the campaign ETA took its inspiration and its filthy trade of death from the thugs of the IRA, on which it was modelled. There is no unqualified cause of congratulations here today.
Dr. Mansergh: ETA began before the IRA.
Mr. Norris: While I am pleased they have at last learnt, it is a great pity that so many innocent civilians, including women and children, had to be slaughtered by these people. It is time they woke up. They are a disgrace to Europe just as are the provisional thugs.
I would like to have a debate on the privatisation of Aer Lingus, which was discussed yesterday by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport. It is clear that the answers given by the Government in the other House were until recently unsatisfactory and incorrect. There should be no difficulty about the State investing in Aer Lingus; we have invested in a number of other airlines, including British Airways. I do not understand why we should not invest in our own airline. It is a cause of concern to some of us that the person appointed to advise on the disastrous Eircom situation is now being invited by the Government to advise on Aer Lingus. We know what happened to Eircom, which was a flop. Far from investing in it, the so-called “fat cats” came in, asset stripped it and we now have one of the worst services in Europe because of a total lack of investment.
We should also investigate the operation of the redress board in which this House played an important role. I have been approached by a number of people who say they were abused 40 years ago or more. They have waited all this time and because of delays in the system and an insufficient number of judges, they are still being denied justice.

Motion on Cancer Services - 22nd March 2006

Motion on Cancer Services - 22nd March 2006
Mr. Norris: It is so that Senator Henry will have the last word. She has shown herself to be an ornament of the House in these areas and we are lucky to have her because she speaks calmly and in a measured way with considerable knowledge and without partisanship. For that reason, I am disappointed that an amendment was proposed because the Senator’s motion was carefully worded. She used the word “regret” and not a word like “failure”, which Governments tend to find unacceptable. When we are dealing with people’s health, we must keep the human element in mind.
I deprecate the attempts of politicians from all around the country to provide linear accelerators everywhere, which are simply vote catching exercises. We must have centres of excellence and listen to the people who know what they are talking about. I hope the Minister of State will not be misled by this kind of politicking, which I completely understand but which does not work and is not in the interest of people’s health.
Mr. McHugh: Give us the roads. It takes seven hours to travel from Malin Head to Dublin.
Mr. Norris: While battling cancer is important in terms of women’s health, there are also high rates of colorectal cancer among men, so we should consider the possibility of introducing a coherent programme which does not specify gender, except where people like Senator Henry advise us of particular sexual predispositions. Even though breast cancer is unusual in men, I know of two male sufferers.

Order of Business - 22nd March 2006

Order of Business - 22nd March 2006
Mr. Norris: I support my various colleagues from different sides of the House who praised RTE. We should recognise how lucky we are to have such an excellent and independent public service broadcasting service, as many other countries do not. Would to God that the United States had an independent broadcasting service like RTE to examine current matters under discussion there.
It is highly unusual, particularly for an intellectually combative Minister such as Deputy McDowell, to throw down a gauntlet so publicly but, when it is taken up, refuse to meet the challenge.
Mr. B. Hayes: Yes.
Mr. Norris: It is intriguing and unusual.
Mr. Dardis: He did not do that.
(Interruptions).
Mr. Norris: Perhaps it is bullying. Perhaps this has led to a significant increase in the representation of the Labour Party in the Dáil, which I had not noticed. Senator Ryan said that it is the second largest party in the House.
Ms O’Rourke: He did.
Mr. Norris: I congratulate him and am sorry I missed that remarkable political event.
Mr. Dardis: It was a Freudian slip. Wishful thinking.
Mr. Norris: Even the fact that the Criminal Justice Bill was introduced in 2004 is instructive as this is 2006. The situation is paralleled by the Disability Bill 2001, which was withdrawn, in that a Bill that was initially 34 pages long has had 340 pages of amendments added to it. The Bill is dwarfed by amendments that constitute ten times its bulk, which clearly suggests that it should be withdrawn and represented in an appropriate form. It is daft to have a Bill that is one tenth the size of the Government’s amendments before this reviewing Chamber gets into operation.
Mr. Cummins: Hear, hear.
Mr. Norris: The Minister has added issues such as ASBOs, gun control and so on, which should perhaps be matters for separate legislation. If one has a Criminal Justice Bill 2004, it becomes less relevant by 2006. There is a gross disproportion. I ask that the Bill be withdrawn and properly presented to the House in a form that is appropriate to the parliamentary process

Order of Business - 21st March 2006

Order of Business - 21st March 2006
Mr. Norris: I call for a debate on the Middle East, in particular, on the impact of the disastrous American policies in this area, especially in light of the fact that a Cabinet Minister appeared in New York on St. Patrick’s Day and took a salute from returning members of the 69th division of United States Air Force in full uniform who had been involved in the massacre of civilians. It was highly inappropriate and made it perfectly clear that this Government has committed itself to collaboration with the illegal war, as so described by our Leader. The point should be made that this was completely inappropriate behaviour. This is still supposed to be a neutral country and for a Cabinet Minister to have reviewed these returning troops is an utter disgrace to this country.
In that debate, we should look at the parallel policies in Israel and Palestine. The Seanad did not sit last week which, in some ways, was a pity because we could have immediately commented on the appalling activities of the Israeli military in bombing a jail in Jericho, which is in another state. It constituted an act of aggression. Imagine the situation of those incarcerated in the jail. They were locked into their cells, had missiles fired at them from helicopter gunships, had tanks fire shells at them and were raked by heavy machine gunfire. This was an absolutely outlandish and barbarous way for people to behave.
We should look at the operations of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. A number of us, including, I believe, the Leader, have been concerned about them for some considerable time, about the arbitrary nature of decisions and about the complete lack of accountability or transparency. In a recent case, evidence was given in the court that a member of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal had not made one favourable decision in well over 100 cases which they managed to find. I know of people who are alleged to go around the Law Library gloating that they “never let one of them in”. This country is highly unusual in that it publishes no information on the record of members of the tribunal or their qualifications. On the basis of what qualifications do they presume to take these arbitrary and disgraceful decisions in the name of the people?
In the past week, I have been made aware of a case of a man whose partner was murdered in Iraq as a result of an honour killing. He managed to flee to this country in danger of his life but he is being returned to Iraq by the Government. There is something really rotten here. As Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas, we should be able to inquire into this matter and say we need proper professional people making these decisions; we need them to be accountable, we need a record of their decisions and we need to know the reason people are being refused leave to remain, so they can get a fair deal.

Order of Business - 9th March 2006

Order of Business - 9th March 2006
Mr. Norris: Perhaps I might ask the Leader if the debate on the Lourdes Hospital report will be open-ended. It is very appropriate that the women should lead off, and we are lucky in this House to have qualified women from all sides. I would not have agreed to that if there were a consultant here, but it would be useful if the debate were open-ended, since, from a personal perspective, I may not be able to contribute unless that is the case.
I am very happy to second the Bill of my colleague, Senator O’Toole. He spotted a gap that I also saw, but I did not think of producing a Bill. I commend him on the rapidity with which he responded. I was appalled by the comments of the judge.
Mr. Ryan: Hear, hear.
Mr. Norris: The gardaí were blamed, but the judge said that he was not bothered by the clock. He certainly should have been bothered, since, as a result of his lack of punctiliousness, someone walked free from Garda custody.
I join with those others, including from the Government side, who have called for a debate on accident and emergency departments. A very calm and reasoned consultant from Galway was on the radio today making the point that we have 97% to 100% bed occupancy. International reports make it clear that the service can operate efficiently and receive patients appropriately only when the figure is 85% or less. I agree with Senator Brian Hayes that we do not need another task force. Unfortunately, particularly as we draw close to an election, the Government response to almost everything is to appoint a commission, a task force, or a think tank. There is a period of paralysis coming, and that is not good enough.
It is a question of resources. I do not mean to be harshly critical of the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney. I have supported her before, since she is a good Minister doing a very difficult job. It requires a lengthy timescale, and as Zhou Enlai said regarding the French Revolution, it is too early to judge.
Last night the House held a very good debate on rendition flights and Shannon Airport, which was very well reported by Jimmy Walsh in The Irish Times . Despite the quality of the debate, RTE completely ignored it, taking only one sentence on the issue from Senator Brian Hayes on the Order of Business. Perhaps we might continue to take an interest in the area. The Government’s response to the Marty commission is not tabled as a document on the reverse. I would like to see it tabled, and if that does not happen, I will do so personally, since the Government response is inadequate, full of evasion, and answers questions that have not been raised without answering the principal concern. It is a thoroughgoing disgrace and should not be accepted by this House. We should examine it before it is allowed to stand as a proper response to this important commission.

Use of Irish Airports: Motion - 8th March 2006

Use of Irish Airports: Motion - 8th March 2006
Mr. Norris: I am very happy to second this motion and I am very grateful to Senator Ryan for giving me the opportunity to do so. Like many other people, I was astonished when this committee was deliberately collapsed. In reply to my question about the committee on 1 December 2005, the Leader stated that if the European Parliament is taking the issue seriously, then we should do likewise. We had about six meetings and the legal representative of the Oireachtas was there to advise us. The terms of reference were agreed between all parties, yet suddenly, the whole thing was punctured and I am sure that this was not without the intervention of the Government. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the House have been gombeens on this issue. I use that word advisedly and I would like to rub it in. A gombeen is one who sells out one’s ideas for cash and it is a perfectly parliamentary term to use. Such people do not care if human beings are tortured or murdered, because we know this has actually happened.
If Members are looking for specific facts, I refer them to five specific flights.
Acting Chairman: The Senator made the point that people sold something for cash. Is he making an allegation about somebody?
Mr. Norris: Yes. People sell out their ideals for cash and the record proves that this is the case. Members have said that we cannot afford to do this because the multinationals are huge sources of employment and cash and so on.
Acting Chairman: It is not appropriate to make such a comment about any Member without having evidence to substantiate it.
Mr. Norris: It was said that we could not afford it because it would cost us financially. That constitutes selling out one’s ideals for cash. I expect to be allowed some injury time for that inappropriate interruption from the Chair.
Acting Chairman: I accept the Senator’s clarification.
Mr. Norris: I want to refer to five specific flights. The first flight landed on 17 June 2003. Hassan Osama Mustafa Nasr, known as Abu Omar, was abducted in Milan. He may not have been a very nice person, but he was treated with contempt for his human rights. He was taken via a military air base in Aviano, Italy and Rammstein, Germany to Egypt on a Gulfstream jet, which later flew to the US via Shannon.
Mr. Dooley: Was he on the plane in Shannon?
Mr. Norris: That is the very fudge the Senators on the other side of the House are trying to make. Under international law, it constitutes complicity in a crime if one assists in the flight. This is what we have done and this is what the Government has tried to conceal. I would appreciate less nonsense from that side of the House.
The suspect was then taken to Egypt, was tortured and released without charge. He was then re-arrested and he has not been seen since. He was probably murdered in Egypt.
The plane used for the second flight was registered as N379P, which made several changes when it was discovered that we were following it. The Americans were obviously more embarrassed about it than the Government. That flight, known as the “Guantanamo Bay express”, was spotted at Shannon Airport in 2002 and had been involved in the abduction of two men from Stockholm in 2001. There is a criminal case pending on this issue.
Mr. Dooley: In which country is Stockholm?
Mr. Norris: Since yesterday, we have been in possession of information stating that the British Government, despite its repeated denials of the use of its bases for rendition, has been involved in such a process. The following three flights are of interest to this House because they were routed back through Shannon. Flight N313P arrived from Brize Norton at 10.15 on 19 October 2003, departed to Tripoli at 13.00, arrived from Tripoli at 15.35 on 22 October, departed to Tripoli at noon on 28 October, arrived from Tripoli at 17.10 on 29 October and departed to Shannon. Flight N379P arrived from Islamabad at 15.50 on 18 October 2002, departed to Washington at 9.00 on 20 October, arrived from Amman at 12.50 on 16 January 2003, departed to Shannon at 10.00. Flight N8068V arrived from Marrakesh at 12.10 on 15 May 2004, departed to Luton at 13.00, arrived from Luton at 11.05 on 17 May and departed to Shannon at 8 a.m. The sole purpose of these airplanes was rendition of illegally kidnapped victims and we facilitated that by refuelling those airplanes at Shannon.
The Human Rights Commission, on 23 December last, called on the State to inspect flights into Shannon. This is not just a group of cranks on the backbenches of Seanad Éireann. I will now turn to the response of the Government to the Marty committee. We were told that inspection was not necessary because it was duplication. As a result of a complaint I made to the Garda Commissioner, I was visited by two detective superintendents. They told me, and I confirmed it this afternoon, that the Garda has no power to enter these aircraft in these conditions because of the way the UN convention on torture was incorporated into Irish law. The Government said something totally contradictory in this report, so which is correct?
Mr. Daly: It has other powers.
Mr. Norris: The instructions to the Government were to investigate whether there had been active or passive co-operation. I do not suggest there was active co-operation but there is factual evidence that there was passive co-operation. There is no doubt on this point.
Mr. Dooley: The Senator should define “passive co-operation”.
Mr. Norris: If the Senator would shut up, I will. The Senator is not in the county council in Ennis now and he never will be, with the help of God and a toothbrush.
Acting Chairman: Senator Norris without interruption.
Mr. Norris: This response to Senator Marty is the most shameful document I have seen. It is full of prevarication, bluster, answers to questions that were not asked,——
Mr. Dooley: Facts.
Mr. Norris: ——inaccuracies, half truths and what appear to be downright lies.
Mr. Dooley: That is because they do not suit the Senator’s agenda.
Mr. Norris: I have indicated that some of it is contradicted by senior Garda officers. The Senator also asked about aid or assistance in the transportation by aircraft or otherwise of persons so deprived of their liberty. Is it beyond the intelligence of a small section of the Fianna Fáil Party to understand plain English? If one refuels an airplane, one is facilitating its operation. It is part and parcel of the flight and would be so understood in international criminal law.
The Government says that in the interests of the proper operation of the security and safety of an aerodrome or the security and safety of persons, aircraft or other property thereon, a garda may arrest without warrant any person who assaults or whom he or she reasonably suspects to have assaulted another person. This is a series of five flights where we know that people were assaulted. This has been determined in several European courts. The pilot of that airplane was the same pilot who brought it back through Shannon. We know he was involved in the assaults. Why was nothing done? Why did the Government not ask who was in the airplane? Why were the airplanes not inspected?
The gardaí told me — this is laughable — that they interrogated the cleaners. The cleaners might notice the odd cigarette packet on the ground but they would not notice the subtle adaptations so people can be shackled and manacled in the aircraft. The Government signally failed in its duty to inspect and that is why this part of its answer is a downright lie and a disgrace to the Irish people.
Mr. Dooley: The Senator should withdraw that remark.
Mr. Norris: I will not withdraw anything. Under Irish law a victim is entitled to secure civil damages against the State. I sincerely hope that the people for whom the Government has been complicit in their kidnap and torture will sue the State and I hope the record of Seanad Éireann and the fact that I and others have pursued this over the past few years will stand as evidence.
Senator Marty mentioned “by act or omission”. We have not covered the State’s act of omission but I am aware of what the Government is trying to do. It is trying to squirt out obfuscation so it can pretend it did not know. However, ignorance of the law is no defence in law. The Government said it is fully aware of its obligations. It might be but why did it do damn all about them? Where the Secretary General’s request is concerned, the Government said the issue arises largely — and this is the fudge — in the context of the transport of any individual while so deprived of his or her liberty. The transport of an individual includes the return leg. That is what the Senators are so afraid of, but can one in conscience think of people being tortured?
The CIA says that if one wants somebody tortured, one takes them to Jordan or Syria and if one wants them killed, one takes them to Egypt. This is on the record from a senior CIA operative. Look at the destinations of those flights. Where were they going?
Acting Chairman: The Senator has exceeded his time.
Mr. Norris: I am honoured to support the motion. I am glad there is a division of opinion on the Government benches because there are decent and honourable people who would not sell their fellow human beings into torture——
Mr. Dooley: Neither would we.
Mr. Norris: ——simply because they have the habit of being colonised,——
Mr. Dooley: We will not succumb to this on the basis of a sham.
Mr. Norris: ——touching their forelocks and being gombeens.
Mr. Dooley: It is an anti-American sham.

Order of Business - 8th March 2006

Order of Business - 8th March 2006
Mr. Norris: History is in the air. Yesterday, we had an interesting discussion on the acquisition of an historical document, the national anthem. Today’s newspapers report that a member of the public has very generously given an original copy of the 1916 Proclamation to the National Museum. This should be commended because the document could have fetched more than €390,000. The generosity of the McCrossan family should be applauded. Mr. McCrossan’s father had an honourable connection with this House as Oireachtas librarian. It was a very remarkable thing to do.
Unfortunately, the State has not always acted with generosity towards its own soldiers. Will the Deputy Leader raise with the Minister for Defence the possibility of recognising the courage, valour and service of solders of the State during the period 1922-24? They have never received a commemorative medal because there was a civil war. It is about time we put the divisions of the Civil War behind us and recognised the service given by these brave people to our country. We should also welcome the establishment of an inquiry by the Minister for Defence into the need to give recognition to the two surviving Army members of the Niemba massacre in the form of medals. This matter was also raised by one of the staff of the House, Mr. O’Donoghue, and it should be welcomed.
I refer to the Marino College of Education case, which was raised yesterday. I listened to the Minister for Education and Science on the radio earlier and she gave a remarkably fine performance. We, on this side of the House, do not give credit often enough to Ministers. Deputy Hanafin is quite the best Minister in Government. She handled this difficult issue with tact, diplomacy and skill, considering she could have been tempted to take a whack at the authors of the report but she avoided that. She praised the work of the college and dealt with the issue with decency, diplomacy and tact. She has acted on many of the requests made in the House such as providing medical education at university level, providing additional special education teachers, speech therapists and so on. We should recognise this and say, “Well done”, to her.
I agree with Senator O’Toole’s comments on the tragic murder that took place in recent days. I very much hope, for the sake of everybody involved, including the Garda, that the suspect’s interview was videotaped so there should be no suggestion whatever that undue pressure was a contributory factor in his death.

Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006

Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006: Second Stage - 7th March 2006
Mr. Norris: I welcome the Minister to the House. I saw Senator Bradford’s contribution on the monitor and heard him refer to the need for a balanced approach. He had a slightly mixed view and had some reservations. I fully support the Minister’s intention to speed up the planning process because I recognise there have been unacceptable delays, especially regarding major infrastructural projects. There are various ways in which this can be addressed, not all of which are considered in this Bill.
I have some reservations about the Bill but also very much welcome certain of its provisions. My reservations concern the very difficult matter of public participation, which is extremely important. I am not sure the Bill really respects our obligations under the Aarhus Convention. The Minister is looking rather surprised and perhaps he will demonstrate in his closing remarks how fully the Bill is in accord with the convention. I am anxious that our obligations under the convention to allow for maximum public participation in matters concerning environmental decision-making be completely respected.
I know the Minister is not a friend of An Taisce because he has launched numerous attacks on the organisation, some of which were quite unfair. We have had a few battles about this.
Mr. Roche: The Senator misjudges me.
Mr. Norris: I would hate to do that because I know the Minister is so sensitive about these issues. I noted that An Taisce has spoken about the possibility of the Bill diluting public participation in the planning process. This would be regrettable. Deputy Gilmore indicated that most delays stem from objections by the public, often involving the statutory bodies. This misses the focus slightly because there are so many other causes of delay, including dithering by the Government and the Railway Procurement Agency as a result of their continually chopping and changing. It is very sinister to see the same old forces, names and faces from inside the transport establishment coming out at the last minute with their reservations concerning the metro. I hope this thinking will be strenuously resisted. The same idiotic, half-baked, stupid, exploded arguments are now emerging again and I hope they will be given very short shrift. These arguments do not stem from An Taisce but from those within the transport establishment, as I call it.
There is also the question of delays caused by the High Court process. The initial local authority process is to cease and greater difficulty will be experienced by private individuals. This is a problem. There is also a difficulty in terms of the perception of the Bill. It is noticeable and has been noticed by the public that there is one significant exemption from the process, that is, the incinerator at Poolbeg. The Minister indicated this has nothing to do with lobbying but it looks that way to the average member of the public. The fact that an important infrastructural development in a sensitive constituency should be exempted has a negative appearance and leads to suspicions. I regret that this development has arisen because it looks like it involves picking and choosing and favouring powerful political interests.
The Minister stated engagingly that the new legislation will use the experience and competence of An Bord Pleanála. The public has had much experience of An Bord Pleanála but by no means all of it has been good. The board has not always shown itself to be competent. In this regard, let me return to the case of Standish Sawmills. An Bord Pleanála is granting a retention to this known abuser although it was fined a couple of thousand euro for poisoning fish with pollutants, as I was informed at the end of last week. I keep receiving correspondence from all over County Offaly on this matter. The sawmill’s management is being rewarded by An Bord Pleanála. If the Minister is serious about such matters, why does he not appoint an inspector? The provision exists for this to be done. I have reservations about An Bord Pleanála precisely because of its track record.
The Minister stated he is interested in sustainable economic development of the country. I agree that we need this, in addition to ways to transport millions of people to school and work without their having to spend hours in their cars. I applaud the Minister’s objective.
Has the Minister considered the experience of the Spanish regarding the metro? Legislation is required in this area. The Joint Committee on Transport was addressed by Professor Melis Maynar from Madrid, who indicated that, in Spain, there is no assumption of ownership if one digs below a certain depth. This could be considered.
Mr. Roche: It is in the Bill.
Mr. Norris: I am pleased to hear that and apologise for not having seen it. What blindness on my part. The Minister will have to excuse me because I have a cold. I congratulate him and warmly welcome the very important change in the Bill. Not making such provision ends in absurdity. I heartily approve of it because it will speed up projects such as the metro.
The Minister also intends to include gas pipelines. I hope the experience regarding the Corrib gas pipeline will be taken into account. It is in such areas that maximum public participation is important.
My colleague Senator MacSharry referred to a lack of clarity regarding whether people are interested in environmental conservation or anti-globalisation. I do not see any problem with being interested in both. There are many sinister aspects to globalisation and we are right to question it, specifically where it has an environmental impact and when one is dealing with very unsavoury groups such as Shell. These are dangerous, ruthless people and we should be very careful about the way in which we engage with them.
I am glad the provisions do not cover developments such as office blocks and these kinds of speculative areas — it is good they are exempted. However, I do not join in the paean of praise for the local councillors. I have always treated my electorate with a certain degree of detachment and have said whatever the hell I felt like saying. If my electors were councillors, I would say the same thing. Let us bear in mind the history of the past few years, in which we have witnessed the most appalling behaviour and corruption on the part of councillors in Dublin. They were selling out their country and selling planning permission. It has been a stinking shame and we should be careful about accepting their advice on planning matters, in which they have shown themselves to be corrupt. Like the Minister, I travel around the country and while doing so people often tell me abuses of the system have not only occurred in Dublin. I am told the sums involved may not be as big as in Dublin but that corruption has occurred. We should therefore by very chary.
I do not agree with Senator MacSharry regarding his worry about county managers collecting councillors’ views and delivering them to the board. I would not like to have private access for councillors who have, generally speaking, shown themselves to be unworthy. Let them prove their track record again.
Mr. Roche: Can I be helpful to the Senator?
Mr. Norris: Yes.
Mr. Roche: Their reports will be debated in open council meetings, of course, so it will not be private.
Mr. Norris: That is good. I am very glad of that, but I am still suspicious. The public will not welcome the fact that councillors are being given these increased powers.
Mr. Coghlan: I think we should admire——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Norris, without interruption.
Mr. Norris: I did not hear the interruption. Perhaps the Senator could put it in writing.
Mr. Coghlan: I was only being helpful.
Mr. Norris: One of my principal objections to the Bill relates to the role of councillors. I do not like the idea. I can say something positive about section 9, which will allow planning authorities to refuse planning permission to rogue developers on the basis of their past history of non-compliance. I congratulate the Minister on his inclusion of this terribly important provision.
Mr. Coghlan: Hear, hear.
Mr. Norris: I have referred previously to the case of a fellow who posed as an architect to savage a couple of houses at the top of Gardiner Street so that some unfortunate immigrants and refugees could be squeezed into ghastly and unsafe dormitories. Our lovely planning authorities were taking the man in question to court, while simultaneously giving him planning permission to undertake some more developments in the same area. I take it that the provisions of section 9 will affect cases like the Standish Sawmills case.
I accept that the Minister’s intentions are good. I am pleased that difficulties such as those which were encountered with infrastructural projects like the metro will be addressed. I have grave reservations about the involvement of councillors in these matters. I do not give the Bill an unqualified welcome, although certain aspects of it are good. I hope this legislation will have the effect the Minister desires, but I have some reservations in that regard. We need to maximise public participation in planning matters. The Minister regards councillors as lily-white and pure and sees them as the best way of marking his cards in respect of planning, but I do not think that will work — not in my book, anyway.

Order of Business - 7th March 2006

Mr. Norris: I support Senator Ó Murchú’s suggestion that the original copy of the national anthem be purchased. It would also be good if, to celebrate 1916, we put it to one side and commissioned somebody such as Seamus Heaney to write an anthem that would be less revoltingly bloodthirsty. It would be more appropriate for the 21st century. While it is a very important historic document, we have moved on and it would be very good to have a less gruesome song to sing. I strongly support the call for a debate on Iraq, but I will not go into the matter. While we have talked about it many times, it is important.
I wish to speak about a matter which I have raised before. I ask the Leader to discuss with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or perhaps arrange a debate about the publication of the names, addresses, occupations and photographs of accused persons before the courts. Such publication constitutes an immediate punishment before a case is heard. In cases where the person is found innocent he or she can never recover. Such people are punished in the wrong and I do not believe that is right. Their right to a good name, which is supposed to be constitutionally guaranteed, is undermined, as is the right to integrity of their families and the right to be presumed innocent. This was highlighted by last week’s case of a solicitor who had been charged with having child pornography. He was not only acquitted — he was found not guilty — but his business is ruined and his family needed to be educated abroad, which represents injustice.
I wish to comment on the Donna Cleary murder. I agree it is appalling that life is so cheap now. We are into an age of contract killing — it is possible to have somebody bumped off for €2,000 or €3,000. However, I believe that pious exhortations to the middle class to stop taking cocaine will have no effect. I would support them and a war on drugs, and all such other rubbish, if it ever in any country showed the slightest chance of success. It never has and it never will. It will not do so until we get a realistic drugs policy to include destroying the financial base by licensing drugs and making them available. I have heard that suggestion not only from this side of the House, but also from a former Minister for Health on the other side. While it is the only way to go, we cannot do it alone. If pious exhortations would work, I would favour them all the time. They do not work.

Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdictino Bill 2005

Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005: Second Stage - 2nd March 2006
Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my colleague, Senator Henry, for making some of her time available to me. Like her, I am not a deep sea fisher person. One of the benefits of the Seanad is that we can listen to speakers. During one of the first debates to which I listened here, former Senator Tom Fitzgerald from Dingle spoke very effectively and knowledgeably about the issue, and just now, we listened to Senator Daly, who was a Minister in this area. It is always worthwhile listening to people in this House who have this kind of expertise.
I agree with Senator Daly that prison is not a good idea. The reason is that I do not think prison is a good idea, full stop, except for people who need to be contained because of the damage they do to society. I do not see why criminals should get a berth at the expense of taxpayers. I use the word “criminals”, even though some of the people operating in the fishing industry do not like the word, but that is what they are. I will put some of the evidence on the record today. I welcome the fact that tax clearance certificates are required. The Minister said in his speech that taxi drivers are required to have them so why should trawlermen not have them also?
I would be very much on the side of the trawlers I saw out in Howth and in Greystones when I lived there. They were family operations and the kind of boats described by Senator Henry. However, I was in Greystones 30 years ago which was a different period. We then had the depredations of the Spanish, but we can no longer blame the Spanish fishermen. As Senator Daly said, it is our own people who are causing the problem.
I would like to draw attention to a letter from the universally respected Dr. TK Whitaker. He wrote to The Irish Times on 9 February as follows:
The Department’s quota/tagging system enables it to limit the annual catch of wild salmon in line with scientific advice on conservation requirements — a responsibility it has failed to discharge in each of the past four seasons. Commercial quotas have been appointed well in excess of scientific advice.
I made this point but the Minister brushed it aside. He did not accept it, but it is the truth. Dr. Whitaker closes his letter by saying:
Continued disregard of scientific advice must, however, lead inevitably to such a depletion of stocks that, as has happened when other species of Atlantic fish have been threatened, a total ban on fishing has to be imposed for a period, no compensation being payable.
Further procrastination can only hasten the disappearance of a unique national resource.
This is not a partisan person scoring political points. It is someone who has proved that he has the welfare of the citizens and the country’s economy at heart.
I said I would put on record some information about criminality. We had a series of cases within the last year, probably one of the worst in Scotland. As a result, we may be facing fines of up to €40 million, because of greedy people with big trawlers. I recall when some of the huge trawlers were being built. The Celtic Dawn was a good example. Everyone welcomed it because it showed that we were in line with new technology and so on, but it was banned from European Union waters. It then skedaddled off to the coastline of western Africa where these types of boats ruined the fishing trade, and we complain because we have people from these countries whom we describe as economic refugees. We helped to make them economic refugees.
The landings in Scotland were at Peterhead. It is believed that Irish vessels illegally landed 6,000 tonnes of mackerel last year and up to 35,000 tonnes in 2003 and 2004. This is not just individual little trawlers, it is the big boys, which is selfishness, greed and an utter lack of regard for the resources. This did not happen just in Scotland. There was another illegal landing of fish, believed to be worth €500,000, in Rossaveal, County Galway. Gardaí stated that they believe 15 trucks were used to cart away this ill-gotten booty. While they were doing so, two of their number were on the quayside trying to disable the closed circuit television cameras which had been installed by the fishery protection regime to prevent precisely this type of occurrence or, at least, to ensure those who are engaged in this illicit trade were apprehended and charged. The fisheries officers who took part in the follow-up investigations the following day had to get Garda protection in broad daylight. Is this not criminality? How can we say it is anything else? Let us not defend the indefensible. Luckily, the attempts to sabotage the CCTV cameras and destroy the video tapes were unsuccessful. This evidence is with the Garda and I sincerely hope these people are brought to court and treated severely, but I do not think it is in the taxpayers’ interest to send them to jail.
It is worth noting that, if the European Union judges that there has been a breach of our quota, we will be penalised. There is a strong possibility that the mackerel quota, for example, which is 48,000 tonnes this year, will be reduced by 40,000. Who will be damaged by this? Again, it is not the pirates but the ordinary decent fisherpeople and trawlermen who will suffer.
The Minister is right to introduce this legislation. In the light of the Browne and Kennedy cases in the Supreme Court, it was inevitable the law must be amended. Criminality is taking place and I urge the Minister to adhere to the severe provisions in this Bill and not to be abashed at using the word “criminality”. Such behaviour is criminal, it should be labelled as such and the perpetrators should be shamed. They are damaging our resources and the livelihoods of decent, honest fisherpeople.

Order of Business - 2nd March 2006

Order of Business - 2nd March 2006
Mr. Norris: I welcome the fact that there will be statements on the Dublin riots today. Unfortunately, I will not be able to take part in these but I was caught up in the riot which reminds one how close to the surface unsophisticated emotions are, even in this capital city. It also calls into question the wisdom of holding a militaristic sabre-rattling parade on Easter Sunday. A much better commemoration would be an analysis of the Easter Proclamation in its historical context and a discussion of how many of its ideals have been lived up to. This morning I received an invitation from the Taoiseach’s office to attend this military parade, which I have turned down. I shall be attending church. It is Easter Sunday which is about the resurrection of Jesus Christ and not the insurrection of Padraig Pearse.
Mr. Dardis: It can be about both.
Mr. Mooney: It is a proud tradition in this country.
Mr. Norris: Our committee on rendition flights through Shannon Airport has been disestablished by our colleagues on the Government side on the basis there was nothing to examine.
Mr. Dooley: It was never established.
Mr. Norris: Might I turn their attention to today’s Irish Independent, page 9, and the headline “Watchdog Highlights our Role in CIA Abductions”. Our supporting role has been commented on. The watchdog examines one case which I instanced here, namely, that of Abu Omar who was illegally transferred to Egypt——
Mr. Dardis: We have discussed this.
An Cathaoirleach: We cannot have a debate——
(Interruptions).
Mr. Norris: The rabble are making so much noise I cannot hear the Cathaoirleach.
An Cathaoirleach: I do not think the Senator’s hearing is that bad.
Mr. Norris: It is quite bad actually.
An Cathaoirleach: We cannot have a debate on Shannon Airport.
Mr. Norris: Can we not have a debate on Shannon Airport?
An Cathaoirleach: Not on the Order of Business.
Mr. Norris: I understand we cannot have one on the Order of Business but I am asking for one because it is important that we discuss this issue. Debate was closed down by certain persons on the Government side. Let us have it in the House, if we cannot have it in the committee because the case I mentioned has been cited in the report, as has Ireland’s responsibility, when it states: “It gives a clear indication that the method exists, together with complex logistical support in various parts of Europe.” That includes Ireland. We are fingered and the Department of Foreign Affairs has said——
Mr. Dooley: Senator Norris is adding to it.
Mr. Norris: ——it is still an allegation knowing it is a proven fact. It is time the Department of Foreign Affairs stopped lying about this.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has made his point adequately and we cannot continue until we have a proper debate on this subject.
Mr. Norris: My friends on the Government side will be delighted with the picture taken in Shannon of the warmonger Bush, with his cannon fodder around him, the poor unfortunate beasts.
Mr. Dooley: The true colours are coming out now.
Mr. Norris: I support Senator Brian Hayes’s call for a debate on tuberculosis. This is a very important matter. It was eradicated by a team led by the late Noel Browne but is coming back. There were protests in this House when we closed down the various sanatoria, warning that this was dangerous.
There is also an epidemic of spitting all over the city of Dublin. We need a new campaign. When I was small there were advertisements on buses warning people that they would be fined for spitting. This is very dangerous, not only is it socially unpleasant but it is also a classic way of spreading TB.

Motion on the Nitrates Directive - 1st March 2006

Motion on the Nitrates Directive - 1st March 2006
Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my friend and colleague, Senator Quinn, for allowing me time to take part in this important debate. I agree with him that the Minister has, to some extent, come out with his hands up with regard to the amount of chemicals being used. This is a serious problem. Some weeks ago, I heard representatives from Teagasc partaking in a radio discussion. They seemed to be in some confusion because they spoke on the one hand about airily scientific standards and, on the other hand, seemed prepared to modify those standards because of the economic damage perceived by farmers in this matter. Like Senator Quinn, I ask whether this is good science. I have much sympathy for Teagasc, particularly the way in which its board is constituted. Farmers and their interests are heavily overrepresented. We must remember, as Senator Quinn observed, that it is all of us as taxpayers who pay their wages. We are entitled to expect respect for correct science.
Last Tuesday, 21 February, the author of a leading article in The Irish Times observed that it seems the Government will give in to the farming lobby. I sincerely hope this is not the case. There is much misinformation on the part of farmers. They say, for example, they are not responsible for pollution. This is not true; they are massively responsible. They are the worst polluters of water and account for more damage than all the other main groupings, including sewerage works, industry and so on.
Mr. Coonan: Can Senator Norris prove that?
Mr. Norris: The facts and figures are there. One does not have to be a scientist to appreciate the reality of the situation. Farmers also say that we hardly need a water pollution policy because everything is fine. Others, however, have been saying there is a serious problem in this regard for many years. Senator Henry was one of the first to raise this issue.
Some 30% of our rivers are either moderately or slightly polluted and the water quality has deteriorated significantly in the past 30 years. Almost one third of rivers are eutrophic, which I understand means they are enriched as a result of the use of fertilisers. This enrichment leads to excessive plant growth which blocks out oxygen. This is not a positive development. The principal cause of this is not even slurry, which is very unpleasant and is responsible for fish kills, but the phosphorous content in the nitrates.
I rely on information in the newspapers for this debate, some of which is very well-informed. It seems farmers are using twice as much nitrate as they need.
Mr. Coonan: That is nonsense.
Mr. Norris: This information is from Teagasc. Approximately half the agricultural land in Ireland is saturated with phosphorous, with dangerous amounts running off and polluting rivers or remaining in the soil. Only 25% of the phosphorous that is applied is taken up by plants for nourishment, while three quarters of it is useless to the farmer and builds up in the soil where it does environmental damage as it runs off into the water table.
It is astonishing that this aspect of the directive is the one that will apparently be weakened. I appeal to the Minister not to do so. The arguments are clear - we are overusing nitrates and only 25% of them are absorbed by plants. It is almost witch-doctoring in agrarian terms. In response to the bullying that is taking place, it seems Teagasc has, in the last several weeks, revised its recommended limits for agricultural use upwards to a point where it now recommends a higher dosage than its own scientific research indicates. Here we have more of the bullying by strong lobbies, including vintners and farmers, that so bedevils good governance. Farmers are pushing our scientists into doing something which their own scientific understanding and the facts registered by them contradict.
I urge the Minister to be tough and to stand up to them. I cannot think of another person more able to do so.
Mr. Dardis: Should we also stand up to the university lobby?
Mr. Norris: On the other hand, the Minister might be tempted to let the oleaginous content of the ministerial position overwhelm him and to just slither over the edge into an easy solution. Let us have no more Irish solutions to Irish problems. We must look after the health and safety of the public by accepting and implementing the scientific evidence. Much of the nitrate applied to the soil seems to be wasteful.

Order of Business - 23rd February 2006

Order of Business - 23rd February 2006
Mr. Norris: Senator Higgins, MEP, is a fine representative, a man of ability and integrity who performs very well in this House. He has not been here, however. The people he is supposed to represent are left unrepresented. There should be an election.
I ask for a debate on Iraq, which is heading inexorably and tragically towards a sectarian civil war. It is important to debate the matter even if we are stifled about the Shannon Airport issue. I note the Government has responded to the inquiry in Europe, which I have seen. It is full of obfuscation, bluster, irrelevancies and half-truths. As we are not having an investigation here, I will write a gloss on it and send it to the inquiry.
I wish to raise a matter that I hope many Members of the House will be interested in, genetically modified food and experiments that are proposed for County Meath involving a German potato crop. It is of no relevance to Irish agriculture. I ask for a debate on the issue, and I would like the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, to be present. I stated at a press conference yesterday that a senior representative of Monsanto was included in the Irish delegation to talks in both Hong Kong and Cancun. This representative was given full accreditation. A representative of The Irish Times telephoned the Department about the matter and was told this was not true. The Cathaoirleach would not allow me to name the person and I will not do so. I have a photograph of her as part of the delegation. She had access as a delegate to areas to which she should not have had access. Her title is the director of government affairs, Europe-Africa, Monsanto Services International. She is based in Belgium and I have a hard copy of the list of delegates
An Cathaoirleach: We will have a debate on the matter.
Mr. Norris: She was brought in under the cloak of IBEC.
An Cathaoirleach: They will be very important points in the debate. We cannot have a debate during the Order of Business.
Mr. Norris: We must get the truth, not more obfuscation and bluster.
A Senator: Name her.
Mr. Norris: It is incumbent on newspapers of record such as The Irish Times to probe and not just accept the prevarication of the Department of Agriculture and Food.

Private Members Motion - Local Authority Services - 22nd February 2006

Private Members Motion - Local Authority Services - 22nd February 2006
Mr. Norris: This is the usual Wednesday evening event — a “tis-tisn’t” row between the principal political parties in which I do not propose to indulge.
Mr. Dardis: Oh, go on.
Mr. Norris: I recognise the important role played by local authorities in our democracy and the fine work that is sometimes done. However, I have always had an ambiguous relationship with county councils. Perhaps 15 years ago I was invited to address the General Council of County Councils in Killarney. I gave the members a bit of a jolt with regard to section 4 planning permissions, which were in operation at the time. I was howled down by most of the attendance. I was asked “What part of England do you come from, sonny?” and that kind of stuff.
Mr. Roche: Perhaps Greystones.
Mr. Norris: I got a good hearing from a minority of the attendance who were prepared to take controversy on the chin. We had a good time and an interesting exchange. At that time, I thought the only problem was section 4 planning permissions. I would count as a negative the absurd deference paid to county councils in this House in particular, though not so much in the Dáil.
I do not want to tread too far into the subject of the tribunals but it would be wrong of me not to refer to them. There has been a series of scandals in which members of local authorities and county councils were involved, including Members of the Oireachtas. This is shameful. It has brought the question of local government into focus and into a kind of contempt in the minds of the general population because the impression is given that people are abroad who, in the words of James Joyce, not only were prepared to sell their country for thruppence but would get down on their knees and thank the almighty Christ they had a country to sell. That is a pity.
I am not making any individual accusations or claims but a general atmosphere has been exposed, largely by the operations of the former Minister, Mr. Michael Smith, and his colleague, who offered money for information, which led to the establishment of the tribunals. That must be recognised. I do not for a minute believe this problem exists only in Dublin, although it may be on a smaller scale elsewhere. I hope it is rooted out, which should be the first aim. We should have respect for the work that it has done, but we should make sure it has done it properly, appropriately and honestly, without any suggestion of malpractice, which is certainly in people’s minds. It is an important part of our democracy, as it touches people’s lives in areas such as planning, housing and the provision of basic services. We are entitled to a higher standard than we have had. I say this while honouring the contribution made by many persons of integrity at local level. They have been let down, however.
I support the work and development of local authorities in its appropriate place, which is not interfering in the work of the Oireachtas. Members of local authorities can talk to Members and brief them, but in recent weeks such authorities have been used as an excuse or figleaf for the subversion of the work of this House with regard to the cancellation of the proposed committee to inquire into Shannon Airport. This is utterly wrong. Perhaps this was the real reason, but it may well have been the Government using local authorities as a cat’s paw and an excuse.
The necessity for the Government to complete the work started when it decoupled part of the relationship between the Oireachtas and local authorities, by stopping double jobbing, has been highlighted. This was the noxious practice of people being both Members of the Oireachtas and members of local authorities. This was the reason, we were told, we could never meet on a Monday. The Oireachtas could not meet on certain days of the week, not because of a matter of national importance, but because local councils were meeting. This was inappropriate and wrong.
We tend to get laughable lectures regarding democracy and it is assumed and often stated that the university seats in the Seanad are undemocratic. They are the only democratic element in this House. These seats at least have real constituencies. As originally designed it was intended that all Seanad seats should be voted upon, and there were nominating bodies. These nominating bodies were eventually neutered, by having the power of voting removed from their ordinary membership. The overwhelming bulk of my colleagues, most of whom are excellent politicians, are still spancelled by an unhealthy, unrealistic, nonsensical and undemocratic method of election involving constituencies of fewer than 1,000 members. An overwhelming number of these are local councillors.
This is wrong and vitiates the entire process. I call on the Minister to look again at this. My colleagues and friends in this Chamber would not have the slightest difficulty getting elected on a proper, wider mandate. It would free them from the absurd deference which is paid to local authorities.
We hear much waffle about carnage on the roads and how we should have respect for speed limits. Why should anybody have respect for a system that is totally chaotic and inconsistent? Everybody knows this. There is a chaotic system of speed limits on the country’s roads because the determination of these limits is left exclusively in the hands of local authorities. It should be a national issue. Road death is a national scandal and should not be left in the hands of local authorities.
The same should be true with regard to speed bumps. Why are these not nationally regulated? Some, in posh areas, are nice undulations, which would hardly cause a hair to rise on that back of one’s head. Others are like the Cliffs of Moher, and these are structurally dangerous to a car driven at 10 km/h. If the Minister wants respect from road users, there should be consistency on issues such as speed limits and speed bumps. It should be logical to suggest that any ordinary decent citizen should be able to drive their car up to the permitted maximum speed. That takes into account a car being driven over a speed bump.
I mentioned this issue to a person, stating that these bumps are meant to deter joyriders. The person laughed, saying that in her area the bumps only encourage joyriders as they get a better bang from hitting them. They destroy the cars and jump out of them. We should have some really consistent and high standards in our local authorities. They are an important part of our Government. We have not yet reached those standards, and the Minister could take action on the matter.

Statements on Third Level Education - 22nd February 2006

Statements on Third Level Education - 22nd February 2006
Mr. Norris: I thank my colleague, Senator Quinn, for giving me a few minutes of his time. I agree with his statements, which related principally to the general question of third level funding. He invoked the name of the late Cardinal Newman and his idea of a university. I will consider a more specific point, namely, the impact of the Fottrell report.
I am glad the Minister has seen fit to implement most of the proposals contained in the Fottrell report. I heard Professor Fottrell on the radio not long ago welcoming this himself. My colleague Senator Henry and I, on advice from constituents in the University of Dublin, have raised a serious question. It is absurd that we are training in our schools more medical students from abroad than Irish medical students. In fact we were allowing foreign students to enter medical schools with lower points, which meant that Irish students who ought to have qualified for places were disadvantaged at a time when there was an insufficient supply of doctors to service the needs of the community. That was an absurd situation and I am glad the Minister has started to address it.
The intake of students is to more than double from 305 to 725, which is welcome. The increase received a strong welcome from distinguished medical correspondents, including Dr. Muiris Houston of The Irish Times, who had previously asked how the €200 million would be spent to address the medical manpower needs in our society. The Fottrell report estimated that we needed between 700 and 740 students. The Minister has set a target in the middle of that range so she is doing exactly what was suggested.
The starkness of the situation is illustrated by the chairman of the Irish College of General Practitioners, to whom I always listen because the public generally encounters the medical profession at GP level, which is the bedrock of the medical service. He estimates that we need to produce at least one GP every fortnight, which is a large number. He also points out that approximately one third of current GPs will retire in the next 15 years so we will need to produce at least 150 family doctors each year. It was an urgent situation but has been largely addressed and I look forward to seeing the implementation of this report.
Before I proceed to the significant question of postgraduate work in medicine, I will deal with the proposal to introduce aptitude tests within the next two years. I would like more information but I am attracted to the idea because the personality of a doctor is very important. It is not quite as important for a surgeon because patients have usually been knocked out by the time they get to that stage but if a person is sick, depressed, distressed or abashed, a good manner is very important.
This has been addressed in various ways. In the old days being a doctor was almost a family profession, passed on from one generation to the next, and there were good arguments for that because a child will pick up the bones of a trade from parents. The
Minister of State is nodding and smiling and he should know what I mean because his family has made a fine contribution to politics and continues to do so.
Universities usually noted family connections and maybe required an interview. We are such a small society and given to gombeenery, if I may use a word that caused such distress in the House earlier, which means that there is often a problem if people are perceived as gaining an advantage from their family connections but that is wrong. To create a rigid, arithmetical meritocracy would also be wrong. In principle, I am attracted to the idea of an aptitude test but such tests can be risky. I have undertaken two intelligence tests. In the first I “out-Einsteined” Einstein but in the second I should have been closeted in a padded cell.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator has one minute left.
Mr. Norris: I thought the Leas-Chathaoirleach was about to call for my removal.
Mr. Norris: Graduate students are an important element of university life but they need funding because many who wish to proceed to postgraduate research in medicine after their first degree leave Ireland for more exciting research prospects and better funding overseas. To retain their talent we need to focus on funding.
I will also raise the Buttimer report, which is important because it deals with consultants. It states that we need to shift from a consultant-led system to a consultant-providing system and I agree with that point. That must be considered but it would need to feed into the system at least 1,000 extra consultants and that will take money. Thank God we have the money to adequately fund this important area of our life.

Order of Business - 22nd February 2006

Order of Business - 22nd February 2006
Mr. Norris: I propose that we amend the Order of Business by taking No. 26, motion 25, concerning the establishment of terms of reference for a committee of inquiry into Shannon Airport. This was subverted last week as a result of intervention by various people, including some who are influenced heavily by councillors. I would have thought that, in light of the behaviour of a number of councillors, parliamentarians would be careful before doing the bidding or becoming the lackeys of people who have not been elected to this House.
Mr. Dooley: That is an outrage and should be withdrawn.
Mr. Norris: It is a perfect argument for an examination of the undemocratic method by which people such as you, Senator Dooley, are elected to this House.
Mr. Dooley: That is a slight on councillors from Clare.
An Cathaoireach: I ask Senator Norris to address his contribution on the Order of Business through the Chair.
Mr. Dooley: It is not acceptable.
Mr. Norris: I am speaking on this issue and giving my reasons, which I am entitled to do. Members may have noticed unfavourable comments in last weekend’s newspapers. I recommend in particular that we all read the article by Diarmuid Doyle in The Sunday Tribune about the forelock tugging that went on.
Mr. Leyden: When did journalists start running the country?
Mr. Norris: He said this was the single greatest argument for the abolition of the Seanad.
Mr. Dooley: Who elected him?
The person interrupting me now mentioned the Seanad’s 50 years of history and he is right. For 800 years we were ruled by Britain. Is that an argument for going back?
Mr. Dooley: Is that what Senator Norris wants us to go back to?
Mr. Norris: Perhaps it is. The Government side of the House could be as craven to the British as it is to George Bush.
Mr. Dooley: This is an outrage.
Mr. Norris: I wrote to the Garda Commissioner and he appointed two detective chief superintendents to meet me. I also brought with me Deputy Michael D. Higgins from the other House.
An Cathaoirleach: That is a private matter.
Mr. Norris: It is directly relevant. They told me that under the way in which the UN Convention on Torture is incorporated in Irish law, they did not have the power to enter the aeroplanes. The Government has sent a report to Switzerland stating the complete opposite.
An Cathaoirleach: That is a matter for the debate.
Mr. Norris: That is why this committee of inquiry is important. One of them is not telling the truth and we are entitled to know which.
The Government has also said there are no aeroplanes involved in rendition through Shannon Airport. That is a lie and the Government knows it. We have the flight patterns and we know one was refuelled on the way back.
An Cathaoirleach: I am calling Senator Leyden. Senator Norris should resume his seat.
Mr. Norris: This has been whipped. The Government side has been whipped and that shows this goes to the highest level. I blame the Taoiseach.
Mr. Leyden: Will the Deputy Leader arrange for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to come into the House as soon as possible to discuss the proposals for the Garda reserve force? Measures to establish such a force are contained in the Garda Síochána Act but should be debated further. This House should discuss the legislation and its implementation. Without the co-operation of the GRA and the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors, it will not come about. There is a time for negotiation to ensure full co-operation from the GRA.
Mr. Ryan: Is the Senator going to rebel again?
Mr. Leyden: I have a vested interest………………..
Ms O’Meara: I add my support to Senator Norris’s amendment which has already been seconded. I was in the House when the issue of establishing a select committee was first raised and no indication was given at any level that there was resistance to the Seanad inquiring into the relevant matter. The House has a right to discuss issues in the manner Senators choose. It is clear the stance of Senators from the other side is being dictated from outside the House. I appeal to them to honour the standing and status of the House by supporting the amendment and proceeding to establish the sub-committee.
Mr. Norris: Both Government parties have been whipped.
Ms Ormonde: On the question of establishing a select committee, nobody outside the House will tell me how I should think or what decision I should make.
Mr. Norris: Good woman.
Ms Ormonde: I am pleased the use of Shannon Airport is being investigated by the Council of Europe and European Parliament.
Ms O’Meara: Why can the House not inquire into the matter?
Ms Ormonde: We should await the outcome of those investigations.
Mr. Norris: The Senator and her party have been whipped. The Taoiseach told them what to do.
Mr. Quinn: I regard myself as a friend of the United States and therefore when Senator Norris and others proposed the establishment of a select committee, I was very careful before deciding to add my name to the motion. Great care was taken with the wording of the proposal, which I support, as I believe it is up to us in this House and nowhere else to make our own decisions.
Senators: Hear, hear.
Mr. Quinn: On that basis we should have a select committee to hear various views that might be expressed.

Mr. Dooley: I oppose the motion calling for the establishment of a select committee of the Seanad, as proposed in No. 26, motion 25 on today’s Order Paper. I do so because there are two similar investigations under way, one by the EU Parliament and the other by the Council of Europe, both of which are getting the full support and co-operation of the Government. We were circulated today with documentation the Government has provided to the Council of Europe. It is comprehensive and sets out in great detail, as requested under Article 52, information I believe is relevant to those investigations. I fail to understand the need to establish a committee when it will not gain further information. Its only purpose will be to fan the flames of the anti-American lobby which, unfortunately, is becoming prevalent in this society.
(Interruptions).
Mr. Dooley: It will create a diplomatic rift between two sovereign states at a time when we depend on the diplomatic services of this country and the diplomatic efforts of the United States to gain special recognition for the illegal Irish in the US. I have come to the conclusion, based on my knowledge of the case, as I am sure have other Senators on this side of the House, that it is an outrage for anybody on the opposite side to suggest, because we do not agree with their contention on this matter, that we have been harangued into it or that we are lackeys for somebody else. That is an outrage——
Mr. Norris: It is because you are.
Mr. Dooley: We are all well able to take a jibe from time to time but when it comes to matters of principle, issues we feel strongly about, why is our conscious——
Mr. Norris: There are no principles in what the Senator is doing.
(Interruptions).

Mr. Hanafin: ……A Member on the Opposition side of the House has vociferously called for the establishment of a select committee of the House. However, Senator Norris said in the House last week that the American state was a criminal regime. That is a very serious and inaccurate statement.
Mr. Norris: May I correct that statement? I said the Administration was criminal.
Mr. Hanafin: He has found them——
Mr. Norris: My statement says it broke international and domestic——
An Cathaoirleach: Sorry——
Mr. Hanafin: I am glad I was interrupted because the Senator interrupted everybody else. I would have felt badly had I been left out.
(Interruptions).
Mr. Hanafin: Having found the United States guilty on every occasion how could Senator Norris say he is an objective person to be on any committee?

Mr. Feighan: I too call for a debate on the 50,000 undocumented Irish working in the United States. The Seanad should support members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs who are travelling to the US to lobby the legislators. I am concerned that an anti-immigrant consensus is gaining momentum in the United States. This Government should do everything possible to ensure that the 50,000 undocumented Irish working in the United States get a chance to come back. Given that summer is approaching there will be many weddings and family occasions. These people, who are Irish citizens, cannot come back during the summer and we have to fight for them.
Mr. Norris: Of course they can and get a job.
Mr. Dardis:
One is tempted to say the latest intervention from Senator Norris indicates his desire to be heard is only matched by his desire not to hear others.
Senators: Hear, hear.
(Interruptions).
Mr. Norris:
As somebody of inordinate sensitivity, I ask to be protected from that unwarranted slur. I was only supporting the Cathaoirleach in the proper application of the rules of the House. The Senator’s response is a disgrace——
(Interruptions).
An Cathaoirleach:
This House used to take great pride in orderly debate. What is happening today?
Mr. Norris:
I share the Cathaoirleach’s concern.
Ms Ormonde: The Senator is back on the blue tablets.
Mr. Dardis: I could not hear Senator Norris — he was shouting.
Mr. Norris: I could repeat the dose any time the Senator likes.
An Cathaoirleach: Let us come back to the Order of Business.
Mr. Dardis: …….Senators Brian Hayes, O’Toole and Norris raised the issue of rendition. Senator Norris proposed an amendment to the Order of Business to the effect that we should take No. 26, motion 25 today. Senators O’Meara, Ormonde, Quinn, Dooley and Hanafin also spoke about this matter.
Mr. Ryan: So did I.
An Cathaoirleach: The Deputy Leader, without interruption.
Mr. Dardis: I apologise to Senator Ryan — he did speak about it. It is a matter on which the House decides, not me, but I can outline my view on it. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs is the appropriate forum in which to raise such issues. The issue might not get the same publicity it would get on the floor of the House——
Mr. Norris: I have done what the Senator is suggesting already. I have referred our motion through the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.
An Cathaoirleach: Order, please.
Mr. Dardis: Nevertheless, the committee is the correct place to debate the issue fully and exhaustively in the presence of the Minister — that is my view on the matter. The House can——
Mr. Norris: Will Senator Dardis make a commitment to debate it——
An Cathaoirleach: Order, please.
Mr. Dardis: The House can decide for itself. If the matter has been turned into a political issue, it has not been turned into one by this side of the House.
Mr. Norris: The Senator was whipped.
An Cathaoirleach: Order, please.
Mr. Norris: He was told what to do by the Government.
Mr. Dardis: …..The issues of rendition and flights can be dealt with by organising a debate on the floor of the House after the reports have been examined and we have seen the Council of Europe’s response. We can have a debate then.
Mr. Norris: The Acting Leader is great at closing the door after the horse has bolted.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business: “That No. 26, motion 25 be taken today.” Is the amendment being pressed?
Mr. Norris: It certainly is, especially in light of Senator Dardis’s remark that we should only discuss this after others have published reports on the matter. He could not have proved the irrelevance of this House more.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 28.
Amendment declared lost.

An Cathaoirleach: Is the Order of Business agreed?
Mr. Norris: Gombeens.
An Cathaoirleach: That is unparliamentary. Senator Norris should respect the House and himself.
Question, “That the Order of Business be agreed to”, put and declared carried.