Statements on Further and Adult Education - 30th November 2006

Statements on Further and Adult Education – 30th November 2006
Mr. Norris: I am pleased to welcome the Minister of State, Deputy de Valera, to the House. I am saddened this may be her last official visit to the House, and it is appropriate that we should bid her farewell. I did not expect the discussion to involve a ministerial lap of honour but I am happy to join in the encomia so elaborately laid before the House by my colleague, Senator Fitzgerald. I was operating under a slight misapprehension in that I understood this debate would encompass a discussion of third level education. I believe other Members were under the same misapprehension given we on this side of the House have been calling for a debate on further education, including third level education, for some time.
Adult literacy is an important issue and I am obliged to put in a good word in this regard for the university I represent. Trinity College has done much work in this area and many decent and idealistic young people have given up their own time to become involved in the scheme it operates. I salute them and their counterparts in other third level institutions. We often hear about the problems young people face and the difficulties they cause, including those relating to addiction to drugs and alcohol. There are, however, many decent young people who are prepared to offer their assistance to adult literacy schemes and similar endeavours.
I will allow myself a certain lightness of touch in recalling an incident in this House some time ago. A colleague stood up one day on the Order of Business and stated his great concern at the high levels of adult literacy in the State. I believe he intended to refer to illiteracy. He spoke passionately, however, about how dreadful were the high rates of adult literacy. I interjected to say that I could not agree more and that as we spoke, people all over the country were reading. I observed that if this was not stamped out, they would soon be writing as well. This was where Catholic emancipation inevitably led. The entire paragraph was omitted from the Official Report because the reporters believed it was too cruel. It is heartening for the people of Ireland to know there are cruelty police on the prowl to ensure we do not savage each other to death in this hallowed institution.
I welcome the Minister of State's indication, in a pleasing and appropriate final flourish, that she has managed to increase by 50% funding in the areas of adult and further education. We should not be carping in our response by pointing out that this should have been done five years ago. It is being done now and that is what counts. We should look forward and not always be cursed with the backward look that is habitual in Ireland. Let us be positive instead.
There are significant problems in terms of education in the area in which I live. The Central Model School in Marlborough Street operates a wonderful scheme for inner city children who may come from a background that is not saturated in culture and educational achievement. Anybody would be proud to have those children in their community. This school's achievements are a result of the Breaking the Cycle programme, which is one of the most positive developments in this State. I used to bewail the fact that these children were given a glimpse of the promised land before it was snatched away from them. That is no longer the case and I am told a high proportion of them go on to attend Larkin Community College. Some have even gone on to third level education. That is the way of the future and it is the approach this humane Minister of State has attempted to foster.
There is a problem in regard to drop-out rates, particularly in disadvantaged areas. I have some concerns about the school inspection scheme. When I was in school, attendance monitors ensured that the parents of any child who left school early received a visit in their homes. This does not seem to happen very often now. It is an old-fashioned concept but it should be reviewed.
The Minister of State referred to the 28 recommendations in the report of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Science on adult literacy. It would be helpful to know how many of these recommendations are being implemented. The Minister of State referred to one of them, the intensive programme of basic education for adults experiencing literacy and numeracy skills deficiencies, which was piloted last spring through all 33 VECs. She observed that this initiative is a response to recommendation No. 13. I hope that will not prove to be an unlucky number. It is helpful to hear in detail how this recommendation is being implemented and it would be useful to discover what is being done in regard to the other 27.
The Minister of State told us that 10,000 students avail of tuition in English under the English for speakers of other languages programme. This indicates the way in which the State is changing. It is vitally important that people are assisted in becoming proficient in the language of their host country. A deficiency in this regard causes incalculable difficulties and misunderstandings, and it is a basic right that people should have the skills to participate in society. I am confident this will be done in a positive and sensitive way.
One can only imagine the ingenuity in which people who are ashamed of their lack of literacy and numeracy skills must engage to conceal their difficulties. The Minister of State has tried to remove the stigma attached to the inability to read, write or calculate without difficulty. Persons with such difficulties may be at an even greater disadvantage than those who arrive here without language skills but may be able to acquire them easily enough.
The experience of a person with literacy and numeracy difficulties must be akin to being dumped in Japan and trying to get on the railway system. People who have been there speak about what a horrendous experience it is because all of the timetables and signs are in Japanese. It is a major culture shock. We must imaginatively take on board the reality that for people with these difficulties in reading and writing, living in their own country is similar to the experience of others of their fellows being dropped in a Japanese railway station and trying to make their way from Tokyo to one of its suburbs.
I agree with the Minister of State that the Youthreach programmes are excellent. They operate on a ground-floor level and in the areas of communities where they are most required. I have one concern, however, and I hope the Minister of State will bring it to the attention of the appropriate persons. A Youthreach centre is located at No. 20, North Great George's Street, in my own neighbourhood. I cannot speak highly enough of the work done by the organisers of the programme, who are positive members of the community.
That was not always the case, however. Under a previous dispensation, they were responsible for an appalling series of acts of vandalism, including the destruction of one of the few remaining 18th century gardens in the north inner city and all this property's beautiful gothic outbuildings. I support the work they do and will continue to do so in any context. I know the people concerned and see that the programme gives the children who participate a beacon of hope in the midst of the difficulties in which they live. I wonder, however, whether this is the most appropriate building in which to conduct this valuable work. It still has some of the most beautiful craft work ceilings in Dublin.

t is a listed heritage building. While I accept its current tenants are much more sensitive to their cultural environment, it would be much better if they had a more appropriate place in the area. I am honoured to be a neighbour of the Youthreach programme but I think what a waste for people to engage in, say, wood-turning under ceilings such as the one in this Chamber. A more appropriate function could be found for the building, while the Youthreach programme continues its very valuable work elsewhere.
I will get into trouble for my comments on the cost of child care support. We hear so much about child care that I am beginning to get tired of the subject, although I understand it is important in further education. However, with the universal clamour for child care, why do people have children if they do not want to look after them? One of the many things I like about women is that they do not think in the tight little sequences or along narrow straight lines as men do.

Ms White: The Senator means women have more vision.

Mr. Norris: That is exactly what I mean. Women are able to think in a lateral way. Would it not be for the benefit of everybody if some accommodation could be found where parents could bring their children with them when attending further education courses? The children could be even with their parents in the classroom. People would not mind that much if a child let out an occasional belch or squawk. The reliance on unpaid child care, rather than looking for more imaginary solutions, puts us in danger of creating another culturally and emotionally deprived generation. In the old days it was the granny and the extended family that provided child care. I regret that such arrangements are no longer made.
I am all in favour of adult learners. When I used to teach in the College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth near Dublin, it was a joy to me to have adult learners in a class. They brought a richness of experience with them and an absolute commitment to their coursework. Some of the younger students were doing a course because their parents had pushed them into it, when what they really wanted to do was hairdressing. As this was not the right thing to do, they were stuck into Trinity College. Adult learners, on the other hand, had actually chosen to come to college, picked their subjects carefully and brought a great richness to courses.
As the Minister of State is aware, in the latest international university survey Trinity College is the only Irish university in the first 100 institutions worldwide. The college plans to get into the first 50 and I believe it can. However, it will need a massive investment programme. Yesterday I lunched at the Provost's House where the plan was explained and costed. It is a good one. If we can get college into the first 50 universities in the world, it would be great for the country, helping to bring up all our educational institutions. The ones in the first 50 usually have a staff-student ratio of 10:1; the ratio in Trinity College is 18:1. It has launched an investment programme to reduce it.
The college is also becoming more open. I adored the bursting of the railings some 30 years ago when a gate was opened on to Nassau Street. The college intends to do so again at Pearse Street. There will be a traverse path from Pearse Street to Nassau Street which will open up the college. Student numbers will be stabilised at 11,500. The figure was 3,000 when I was a college student. The college has imaginatively used the space available to it, as exemplified by the CRANN Building.
While it concentrates on developing fourth level education, the college has not neglected the people at the more delicate end of the educational spectrum. Up to 15% of places are allocated to non-traditional learners who include those who come within the parameters of this debate. In addition, there is the excellent programme for disabled people, pioneered in Trinity College, as well as the Trinity Access programmes which gives access to a college education to people from social groups and parts of Dublin city who did not dream of having a Trinity College degree. I was part of the team which presented certificates last year and it was such a thrill to meet such individuals because of their enormous sense of achievement and participation.
I salute the Minister of State, Deputy de Valera, for the work she has done. I have not done it in quite as elaborate a way as Senator Fitzgerald but it is nonetheless heartfelt. The Minister of State only knows too well that although she may relinquish her ministerial post, some of the privileges survive such as car-parking, visiting the restaurant and the Visitors Gallery.

Miss de Valera: All is not lost.

Mr. Norris: No. I look forward to sharing a table for a modest repast and even a glass of celebratory wine with the Minister of State after she has left her Department.

Order of Business - 30th November 2006

Order of Business – 30th November 2006
Mr. Norris: I support my colleagues who have called for a debate on the report of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights on collusion. It is a matter of grave concern and there seems to be strong evidence that there was such collusion. It is an appalling vista. However, unlike Lord Denning, I believe appalling vistas must be confronted as otherwise they will continue to recur. It pains me to think the British Government was involved in this kind of business, but it seems that it was. On the other hand, it would be helpful to consider the whole matter of collusion. I welcome what Senator Mansergh said that we ought to investigate the whole business, including the CIA involvement at Shannon Airport. In that matter I call on the Taoiseach to withdraw the statement he made in Brussels last night that Shannon Airport was not used in any way in rendition. This is so blatantly untrue that it damages the country. It has been absolutely factually established beyond any question of doubt that Shannon Airport is used and has been consistently used.

Mr. Daly: It has not been and is not used.

Mr. Norris: The report makes it very clear.

Dr. Mansergh: There is no basis for that claim.

Mr. Norris: The European Parliament committee deplored the stopovers in Ireland of aircraft which have been shown to have been used by the CIA for the extraordinary rendition of Ahmed Agiza, Mohammed El-Zari, Bisher Al-Rawi, Jamil El-Banna, Abou Elkassim Britel, Khaled El-Masri, Binyam Mohammed, Abu Omar and Maher Arar, the nine cases which have been clearly, factually and evidentially established.

Dr. Mansergh: None of them passed through Shannon Airport.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris-----

Mr. Norris: It is utterly wrong for the Taoiseach to disgrace Ireland by saying something that is blatantly untrue.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is now debating a matter which will be the subject of a future debate, at which time he may raise all the points made.

Mr. Norris: This House needs to send the message that it is inappropriate for the Taoiseach to engage in making blatantly untrue statements.

Dr. Mansergh: There is no basis for saying that.

Ms Ormonde: The Senator should withdraw that comment.

Mr. Norris: I would welcome the opportunity to clear up the matter. Let him come into the House and be questioned about it.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is completely out of order.

Mr. Norris: I shall bring myself back into order to pursue briefly one other matter. I ask for a debate on the age of consent. The Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, indicated that his inclination was to reduce the age of consent to 16 years. Following widespread consultation, young people have said the same. I signal a warning to Fine Gael. When dealing in this House with the decriminalisation of homosexuality, a very fine Minister on the other side made a significant point about her refusal to introduce discrimination. Members on this side disgraced themselves by attempting to introduce a discriminatory age of consent for the purposes of political advantage. Unfortunately, I see Fine Gael tacking into the wind again on such issues. For example, it has come out against a reduction in the age of consent without any particularly good argument. It seems to believe it will be popular. Given our responsibility for young people, we must ensure our laws reflect the reality of what is happening on the ground and not introduce something for electioneering purposes that may garner a few votes from reactionary sources. Similarly, I understand a spokesperson in the other House opposed sections of the Colley report because they provided for adoption by same sex couples. This is done without any examination of the matter.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is seeking a debate.

Mr. Norris: These are people adopting their own children. I gave Fine Gael a bloody nose on this issue when it tried to do this during the discussion of the decriminalisation of homosexuality and would be very happy to do so again from this side of the House if it continues with its cheap electioneering.

Ms Terry: It is not cheap electioneering. We are entitled to our opinions, as the Senator is entitled to his.

Statements on Domestic Violence - 29th November 2006

Statements on Domestic Violence – 29th November 2006
Mr. Norris: I welcome what Senator Kett has just said. It is important that the Government listens to the budgetary requirements of groups such as Women's Aid in particular. It is clear that a comparatively small amount of money would make an enormous difference. It is good that this comes from the Government side. This House is united in asking the Government to do this. I welcome that the Minister of State has shown a sensitivity towards the fact that there is also violence against men, some of which is quite serious. Senator Kett said 19 people were murdered. I would be surprised if any of them were men, I think they were all women, so that violence is extreme. It would be a great pity if we got into a competition of victimhood-----

Ms O'Rourke: Yes.

Mr. Norris: -----between various organisations. If anybody is battered, then it is a reproach to us all and we must all address it, while accepting that the preponderance of violence perpetrated by men, most of whom are intimately connected, is against women. That said, I very much welcome the commitment of the Minister of State to ensure the needs of men are facilitated.
I refer to the report conducted, I am glad to say, by an academic in my university, Trinity College. The Minister of State described the report as excellent and it indicated that it was inappropriate to address the issue exclusively as one of violence against women. An aspect of the report I found quite astonishing and which must be examined is that 49% of admissions to women's refuges were from the Traveller community which represents 0.6% of the entire population. That is an extraordinary disproportion. We need to find out the how, why, where and when, and what can we do. It is a gross distortion that 49% of admissions were from the Traveller community which represents 0.6% of the population. There is something seriously wrong in the Traveller culture that needs to be studied.
Women's Aid is a marvellous organisation and we are greatly in its debt. The report is of great concern. For example, there is a huge increase in calls, up 30% in 2005 from 19,000 to 25,000. Of greater concern than anything else is that 10,504 were missed calls, a matter to which the Minister of State should pay attention and which he should address urgently. The number of missed calls has increased in the past year from 26% to 40%. A woman or man has to get the courage to make that report and then they are blocked, do not get a reply and the call is missed for one reason only - a lack of adequate resourcing. Let us reflect on that - 10,000 people in distress whose calls are not listened to for this reason. Both the calls and the applications for refuge are increasing rapidly.
The report has an interesting chart showing the types and incidence of abuse involved. Some 57% were emotional abuse, 28% physical abuse and 6% sexual abuse. When one looks at it, emotional abuse sounds vague but it is a way of controlling people. The report states that the tactics of abuse used by perpetrators are deliberate, controlling and unrelenting. The repetitive nature of the abuse has the effect of wearing a woman down gradually, making her doubt herself, putting her in fear and isolating her from supports.
The report moves on to the physical abuse and points out the catalogue of things that are done: struck with golf clubs, thrown against the wall, hit with a hammer, burnt with an iron and shot at. This is astonishing and so much of this takes place within intimate relationships that must have started on a reasonably positive note. Emotional abuse includes being stalked and watched constantly, denied food - this is medieval - and having to ask permission to turn on lights. The mental cruelty involved in this controlling is all a question of power. Sexual abuse includes being forced into prostitution by somebody they had loved, married and lived with, and coerced into re-enacting pornography and rape. This is so degrading. It a question of control and power. The impact of the physical abuse includes foetal abnormality, which means it is passed on to another generation, miscarriage, and serious physical injuries which sometimes lead to attempted suicide. It is not surprising that when broken down, the preponderance of requests concern legal advice from solicitors, court accompaniment, refuge and housing.
Some 67.5%, almost 70%, of attacks are committed by male intimates, 30% by male family, and 8.5% by male other. There is no doubt there is a gender element. There is also abuse of children which follows a similar pattern. Children are even more vulnerable, yet they are beaten with weapons and are the victims of violent physical assault, attempted murder, being thrown across rooms and so on.
Women's Aid sent Members some briefing material which is interesting. It indicates that it has some concern about the shift that appears to be taking place towards including men. What it says needs to be listened to. Of great concern to Women's Aid is the way in which these contentions have been used to attack organisations working to end violence against women and to undermine the valuable work of refuges and frontline services. This must not be done. I did say there should not be a competition of victimhood but neither should reports be used to undermine the very valuable work of groups such as Women's Aid. It has certainly traditionally been regarded as an area that is heavily gender centred.
The recommendations made are practical and, perhaps, the Minister would look at and address them. Parents of the child in common but not residing together should be eligible for protection under the Domestic Violence Act 1996. Often the couples may not live together on a permanent basis. They have, however, a child in common and have access rights and so on. These people are entitled to be protected. It is not just a question of barring orders; it is a question of protecting the physical and emotional well-being of the people.
On a related issue there is the residence requirement for cohabitees applying for a safety order. This should be removed. It is a ridiculous qualification that they have got to be residing together. It is a question of protecting people from physical danger. A property qualification is appropriate for something to do with rates, it is not proper for something to do with physical violence. The residence requirement for cohabitees who have an equal or greater interest in the property should be removed from barring order applications. In the case at present of unmarried couples living together, a barring order may only be sought if the applicant has lived with the respondent for six of the previous nine months and has an equal or greater ownership right to the family home. This is all about property. This is nonsense. We examine the rights of individual human beings rather than this legalistic property requirement. Guidelines should be developed for the criteria for granting orders under the Domestic Violence Act 1996 because it fails to set out any of these criteria. We need to speed up the court process in situations of gross domestic violence in some cases leading to murder. Delay is not just justice denied, it is possibly lethal for the person who has applied.

Order of Business - 29th November 2006

Order of Business – 29th November 2006

Mr. Norris: I support Senator Ryan's comments on the report of the European Parliament into so-called extraordinary rendition flights. There was a disgraceful performance on radio today by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern. It was a mixture of bluster, evasion and deceit, as usual. He continually interrupted and harassed other speakers and then accused them of interrupting him.
Mr. Leyden: Like Proinsias De Rossa, MEP.
Mr. Norris: It was a shaming performance and Senator Ryan is correct to say he answered questions that were never asked. Nobody said we could prove people were transported in the aeroplanes in question. He said he relied on Condoleezza Rice's assurance but has he forgotten that a prisoner in shackles was found on an aeroplane at Shannon Airport? Admittedly it was an American prisoner but it should not have happened and flatly contradicted everything Condoleezza Rice said. Thank God for the former Leader of the Opposition in this House, Maurice Manning, chairman of the Human Rights Commission, who made it clear that there was a case to answer and that the Minister's attitude was unsatisfactory, with which I agree. The Minister was too busy to attend the sessions.

An Cathaoirleach: Is the Senator calling for a debate?

Mr. Norris: I am and wish to give my reasons. I hope I will be allowed to because, as the Cathaoirleach knows, my attempt to establish a committee was stifled by the Government and Members on the Government side of this House.

An Cathaoirleach: That is history and not now relevant.

Mr. Norris: Then the Minister attempted to make a few feeble jokes, which shows how seriously the Government takes it. It has been proved that the aeroplane involved in the rendition of a particular named person was refuelled on the return leg and that amounts to complicity.

Mr. Ryan: Hear, hear.

Mr. Norris: It could not be clearer.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is seeking a debate.

Mr. Norris: I insist on being allowed to tell the House about these matters in pursuit of my demand for a debate.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has made his case adequately.

Mr. Norris: The Minister referred to the fact that there were four complaints. I wish the record of the House to show that I was one of the complainants. As a result the Garda Commissioner appointed two senior detective gardaí to meet with me. I brought Deputy Michael D. Higgins with me to the meeting as a witness. They flatly contradicted everything the Minister said about the capacity to search aeroplanes.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is now initiating a debate.

Mr. Norris: I am calling for a debate, which is essential because I am trying to raise the issue on the Order of Business. However, the Cathaoirleach is trying to confine me. The committee which was well on the way to being established was stifled and it is an appalling situation which we must confront. Decent people on all sides of the House want a debate.

Can the Leader find out from the Government what action it proposes to take in

light of the Colley report on the recognition of same-sex relationships? I

apologise. My telephone is ringing.

Mr. Mooney: Censored.

Mr. Minihan: Is it Condoleezza Rice?

Mr. Norris: I expect it is Deputy Dermot Ahern telephoning with his proposals for legislation on the matter.
It is important that we know the Government's plans. There has been a series of reports from the Law Reform Commission and now this one. Every time a report is produced the Government establishes another commission, think tank or the like. Procrastination must come to an end. Will the Leader find out when the Government will act on this? A series of surveys has shown that Irish people are largely behind this type of move. It is no longer a contentious issue so the Government should move on it.

Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2006 - Second Stage Debate - Tuesday 28th November 2006

Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2006 – Second Stage Debate - Tuesday 28th November 2006

Mr. Norris: I was not really offering but the Cathaoirleach's benign paternal eye spotted me. This is a matter on which I had thought I might have an opportunity to speak but there have been many other engagements this evening, such as the launch of Deputy Michael D. Higgins' book and the launch of a programme for the restoration of St. Patrick's Cathedral by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche. I gather some funds will be made available to ensure this valuable project proceeds.
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill because I have several general points to make. The Minister of State has referred to franchising out maintenance and repairs on gas lines. This is deplorable. It is part of the move away from our creditable State agencies. Gas and water supply, allied with companies such as Bord na Móna, were State enterprises. Although some had problems, at least one knew with whom one was dealing. Now one does not. Every time one calls about a missing part, one speaks to a different person. There should be some standardisation. It is a pity we have chosen to franchise everything out and dismantle State enterprises. This runs through the entire system. It applies to telephone services too. The company says it will record one's conversation for the purpose of teaching its apprentices rather than asking permission to do so.
There is a section in this Bill dealing with safety of liquefied gas in pipelines. This strikes directly at the Shell to Sea issue. I am dismayed at the Government's attitude to this matter. It is quite extraordinary that our Constitution, which guarantees property rights, appears only to guarantee the rights of property developers and speculators. Small people who feel it is their right to protect their homes do not seem to matter nowadays. This Government has not supported these people. Instead it has enlisted the forces of the Garda Síochána into the battle on behalf of a notorious multinational, Shell Oil.

An Cathaoirleach: I am afraid the Senator may be diverting slightly from the real purpose of this debate.

Mr. Norris: I want to divert here. We are after all a nation of digressors.

An Cathaoirleach: Is it in order to digress?

Mr. Norris: Of course it is. If it was not in order the Cathaoirleach would have stopped me long ago. Laurence Sterne not only wrote digressions in Tristram Shandy but also wrote a whole chapter entitled "A Digression upon Digressions". I assure the Cathaoirleach that I will be modest and control myself.
This is germane to the question of the safety of gas pipelines as contemplated by the Bill. People have the right to protest when they feel their safety is threatened. The Government obviously feels the need to be a monitoring power and purports to look after the welfare of citizens in this Bill. It is appropriate to raise this issue, especially to sound a warning about how this powerful company is investing heavily in media spin. We must be careful not to assist in this.
I am only repeating what I said on the Order of Business a few days ago. It was astonishing that the good and decent Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, allowed himself to say in the Dáil that an unnamed acquaintance of his had overheard a telephone conversation on a mobile telephone in Grafton Street in which the words "Rossport", "riot" and others were mentioned. That is smear and it is not good enough. I had complimented this Minister a few weeks previously on his courage in tackling other issues. Given that the former Minister, Ray Burke, handled licences in an unusual way that caused considerable comment, this should be opened up. It is inappropriate for the Taoiseach to say the correspondence is closed and so cut off the debate.
I hope we will have an opportunity under the Cathaoirleach's wise chairmanship to open up the question of the Shell to Sea campaign, the rights of the people in that area and the fact that they were attacked. I have seen the videos and spoken to people who were involved. One man, a professional photographer, was beaten with a baton and pushed onto the barbed wire. That is not appropriate. I am looking to the Cathaoirleach to guide us and ensure we have a full and proper debate on this topic.

An Cathaoirleach: As such, does the Senator recognise that this is not entirely relevant at the moment?

Mr. Norris: Everything is relevant. It is all a matter of degree. That is why the Cathaoirleach is so wisely tolerant of me. There are now two Ministers of State present in the House and we hope that some of these protests will make their way back to Government, even if it requires a certain elegance of construction to make them appear relevant.
I would like to take up the question of fuel allowances, which may not be directly contemplated in the Bill. Somebody mentioned the fact of people needing to keep warm, particularly elderly people. Although this may not be directly contemplated by the Bill, it is appropriate at this time of the year that the Government bear it in mind. I heard a case on the radio of a person who had gone marginally over the income limit, perhaps as the result of having a special savings incentive account, SSIA, and was cut off from the free fuel supply. This man and his wife have cancer and the form of her cancer leads to a coldness of the extremities bordering on hypothermia. They are vulnerable people. This comes under the heading of energy in a broad sense. In a country which has sufficient funds, cases such as this should be dealt with in the most flexible possible way. I thank the Cathaoirleach for his lenience and tolerance.

Order of Business - 28th November 2006

Order of Business – Tuesday 28th November 2006
Mr. Norris: I join my colleagues in seeking a debate on the siting of the new children's hospital. I raised this matter some time ago on the Order of Business, well in advance of the Government's decision on the matter. What I asked for then is what is now being sought, an international review of the siting. Quite a number of consultants from the different hospitals are seeking such a review. While the Mater Hospital is my neighbour, and I do not wish to be unneighbourly, the site may in the long term may be too small with inadequate car-parking, access problems and no maternity facility. We should examine this choice of site again. I was assured such a review would take less than six weeks. The six weeks have elapsed and I regret that, perhaps as has been suggested, this course of action was not taken for political reasons.
I call for a debate on human rights in China. Senator O'Toole and I, over a considerable period, have raised the matter of organ harvesting in China. Last week this was raised at the committee on foreign affairs with a presentation from Mr. David Kilgour, a senior Canadian politician and former Secretary of State for Asian affairs who speaks with some authority. His report was worrying. Telephone traffic has been monitored in which orders were placed for livers and kidneys by people in Japan and elsewhere. It was like a butcher's shop with spare parts for purchase. While this has always been denied, various reports in today's newspapers quote a senior Chinese official accepting organ harvesting occurred but that it was only from executed prisoners. We take a view of the execution of people and the harvesting of organs. It is claimed it is voluntary but it is very difficult to be involuntary when one has a bullet in the back of one's neck.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is the Senator looking for a debate?

Mr. Norris: Yes. This statement highlights a clear discrepancy. If the Chinese authorities only harvested the organs of every single person executed, almost 1,600, then how can they explain the discrepancy of many thousands of organs being harvested? It is believed that members of Falun Gong are kept alive - almost as if in cold storage - awaiting an organ order and then callously murdered. It is a revolting and disgusting practice.
Will the Leader ask the Minister for Transport to give some guidelines on the new provisions introduced by the EU on what one can and cannot take on board an aircraft? Yesterday afternoon on an internal flight to Cork, I lost a quarter of a tube of toothpaste. On the return journey, I lost a canister with less than a quarter of an inch of-----

Mr. Leyden: Shaving cream?

Mr. Norris: -----mouth wash. I was told that even though it was less than 100 ml, it was the container that was the danger. Yet one can buy a large bottle of water to carry on board. What was the problem with the container? Did they think I would go into the cabin and squirt the toothpaste in the pilot's eye, take over the plane and land it on the White House? It is absurd.
Will the Leader ask the Taoiseach, whom we all respect, to at last declare war on terrorism and diplomatically isolate the two principal terrorists on the planet, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair? It is only when their activities are contained and the situation in the Middle East is resolved that we will not have to take these absurd travel precautions.

Order of Business - 27th November 2006

Order of Business - 27th November 2006
Mr. Norris: I ask the Leader to find a way to move forward the Civil Partnership Bill. It is very important it is moved forward if we are to be taken seriously as legislators. The Government has procrastinated on this in an extraordinary fashion. The matter has been referred to various committees, including the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution reviewing the family. It reported along lines very similar to the Bill before this House. There is also the Colley advisory committee. Reports in today’s newspapers indicate it is very much on track with the Bill. The courts continually reprove the Oireachtas for leaving these important legislative decisions for judicial decisions. Having become the laggard of Europe in this regard, it is important we move forward.
I call for a debate on the Middle East for a particular reason. I had reason to speak to the Israeli ambassador in recent days and to bring to his attention illegal demolitions taking place in the area around south Hebron, including in the village of At-Tuwani. He attempted to be helpful but pleaded difficulties of various kinds. Yesterday I received copies of military notices indicating demolition orders. These are against the most vulnerable people, that is, Palestinian subsidence farmers living in caves. Rudimentary attempts to provide them with the most basic sanitary and water arrangements have been demolished by the Israeli army while parallel illegal Israeli settlements are accommodated and provided with water and sewerage treatment facilities. This ties in with a report in the newspapers today that 39% of these settlements not only break international law but break Israeli law as determined by the Israeli high court as far back as 1979, that is, that these settlements must not be built on land owned by Palestinians. It is important this House continues to monitor the situation.
I have come from a meeting, to which I must return, at which a presentation is being made by Mr. David Kilgour, a Member of the Canadian Parliament and a highly respected figure, on organ harvesting in China. The meeting was facilitated by Senator O’Toole and myself. It is important we take up this matter because it is appalling to think there have been 60,000 organ transplants in a situation where only a couple of thousand prisoners have been executed. Nobody in China is officially prepared to say from where these organs come. It is clear prisoners are held and their organs are harvested. Even the words used are appalling. One can order organs from people who are still alive and people will be killed to order to provide organs. This issue is important because some of the newspapers here, including the Irish Independent, have a policy of thrashing this type of material. Last week there was a disgraceful article by some little pimple in that newspaper whose name I cannot even remember who derided the Dali Lama. This House should look at what was said.
I completely agree with Senator Ryan on the need to introduce ethical constraints. It is only fair, for example, to those who govern the National Pensions Reserve Fund. If they are charged with making as much money as possible, then they could be held accountable if they do not invest in dubious enterprises. I have been in contact with the Sudan divestment group and I had a very useful meeting on this issue last week with the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan. He indicated the issue is being looked at and that there is a United Nations protocol advising on it, although it is not mandatory. The Green Party has legislation before the other House in that regard. I am co-operating in the introduction of a protocol seeking ethical considerations in terms investments, as I am sure will Senator Ryan and other Members. I believe there will be all-party agreement on this issue.

Private Members Debate on Economic Competitiveness - 22nd November 2006

Private Members Motion - Economic Competitiveness - 22nd November 2006
Mr. Norris: I did not anticipate being called so soon. I thought I would have another ten minutes. I compliment my colleague, Senator Quinn, on tabling this important motion on inflation. I am glad I have this time to speak on it because it would be a great pity if a subject as significant as this were not supported by the Members representing the University of Dublin and it was left to all our separated brethren from either the Labour Party or from the other great national institute of education.
I notice an amendment was tabled to the motion. I deplore the habit of tabling these rather flatulent amendments. The motion is perfectly clear. It does not seem to be critical of the Government in any significant way. It simply states the fact that we know there is a difficulty in terms of inflation as it affects the competitiveness of the country and the fact, which is established, that we are running above the EU average and we ask the Minister to do something about it. That seems a perfectly rational position to take and it is not one that could be construed as any kind of carping criticism of the Government. Nonetheless, the Government considers it necessary, as usual, to delete all words in the motion after “Seanad Éireann” and replace the wording with words that simply note the situation with regard to inflation and support the Government’s prudent approach. I take exception to the word “prudent” in terms of the Government.
Before I get into that and before my good friend and colleague, Senator Mansergh, leaves the House, I must take him up on one point.
Mr. Leyden: He is not leaving now.
Mr. Norris: I thought it would be the gentlemanly thing to do to let him know that I was going to embark on a little slight. I listened to him with some amusement and interest but unfortunately I had to leave because I had a guest with me and I was not able to wait for his full contribution. I noted he took on a certain national newspaper, of which I must say I have rather mixed views, as I have of its proprietor, that well known rugby player, Tony O’Reilly, who now effects a title.
When Senator Mansergh spoke about Senator Ross, I did not think that what he said was quite the highest standards of the public school. I thought rather than being the hero of the fifth, the Senator was in danger of turning into the rotter of the remove because poor Senator Ross was not here to defend himself.
Dr. Mansergh: I assumed that given his was the second name on the motion, he might be here to speak on the subject.
Mr. Norris: Even more cruel moves. The Senator is definitely the rotter of the remove.
I do not always agree with my colleague when he writes in the newspaper, especially when he engages on his union bashing exercises, but on the other hand, he writes with extraordinary clarity and accessibility. For people like me, to whom economics is something of a mystery, in fact a greater mystery-----
Mr. Leyden: The Senator is being unfair to Senator Mansergh.
Mr. Norris: -----he makes it accessible to me. Senator Mansergh probably said this with a touch of irony and a little soupçon of wit-----
Dr. Mansergh: When it is Sunday newspaper coverage, it ought to be inflation-proofed and it clearly is not.
Mr. Norris: That is a fair point but I want to take the Senator up on one phrase. He spoke about Senator Ross’s Sunday addresses to the nation from the pulpit of-----
Dr. Mansergh: I spoke about the newspaper’s Sunday addresses.
Mr. Norris: The Senator should not be such a nitpicker. I am waiting for the Chair to say “Senator Norris without interruption.”
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Norris without interruption.
Mr. Norris: When the good Senator drew a contrast between the public addresses and the privacy of the Seanad, I thought that was a very interesting thought. I must agree with great reluctance that nothing which happens here at this hour will be reflected and this debate should be taken seriously and reflected in the media.
I support the motion. However, I have concerns about the term “prudent” when used in terms of the stewardship of the Government. I pay tribute to the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, who is a good negotiator. He is able to persuade two apparently irreconcilable sides to find a common meeting ground, not to pursue their aims entirely selfishly and to put a degree of national interest into the equation. However, that prudence is very limited. A series of disastrous situations were entered into by the Government which can only contribute in various ways to the inflationary process.
I will give one example which is close to my heart at present, namely, the situation regarding the Corrib gas field. Our natural resources were handed away by the Government. The Minister of State can shake his head all he likes but they were given away for nothing. We do not even receive a tax yield on it.
Dr. Mansergh: We receive 35% corporation tax.
Mr. Treacy: We receive corporation tax and PRSI.
Mr. Norris: Why did we not have the gumption to exploit these opportunities ourselves?
Affordable housing was vaunted by the Government. It sold out and let property builders and speculators weasel their way around it. It contributes to house inflation which is significant. It is a terrible situation that so few young people are able to buy a house. The Minister of State knows this is true because we know the Government has not lived up to its affordable housing commitments.
Regarding wastage in road contracts, one contractor expended €50,000 on machinery and manpower during the construction of a small section of a road but charged the Government €3 million for it.. It had to do with a steamroller. I put it on the record of the House some time ago. Where was the prudent stewardship there? Where do they look after and guard the interest of the taxpayer?
A number of years ago, I raised the issue of the confusion and mess at the West Link toll bridge on the M50. Everybody, even the Minister of State must agree that was a lousy contract.
Mr. Treacy: It is historical.
Mr. Norris: They always state, “It is historical.” However, it exists and it is a lousy contract. Now we must buy it out.
In terms of prudent stewardship, the Government is skating on very thin ice. Senator Quinn, as a businessman, isolated an important matter in terms of competitiveness. The strength of our economy depends on maintaining competitive status in the world. We have the advantage of a low corporation tax regime for US companies. I hope we manage to retain that in the face of potential European opposition. Whatever our criticisms of aspects of Government policy, all sides unite in defending this regime because it attracts people, as does the literacy and intellectual skills of our educated workforce.
Dr. Mansergh: Of which Senator Norris is such an ornament.
Mr. Norris: Of what am I an ornament?
Dr. Mansergh: Literacy.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Mansergh should allow Senator Norris to complete.
Mr. Norris: Senator Mansergh is so kind but I am afraid I sense a little touch of irony.
This is an important subject. The House is in debt to Senator Quinn for having raised it because he signals a warning that our present remarkable position may not last if we are not prudent and do not ensure we do not price ourselves out of the market. It is a competitive world. Competition comes not from the United States and Europe but from developing areas such as China and other places where wage levels are tiny compared with what we have here. I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for his indulgence and I compliment Senator Quinn on his important motion.

Order of Business - 22nd November 2006

Order of Business - 22nd November 2006
Mr. Norris: I ask for a debate on the Corrib gas field and the Shell to Sea campaign. On more than one occasion, I praised the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, for his sterling qualities of decency and political courage. However, he did not show them last week in the Dáil. As parliamentarians, we are entitled to an explanation of the Government by smear which seemed to occur. It is extraordinary that he stated an unnamed acquaintance overheard a conversation on a mobile telephone on Grafton Street which included words such as “Rossport” and “riot”. God bless his hearing. He is obviously not an army deafness claimant. It is an outrageous and disgraceful performance by the Minister.
Also, we are told the provos are up to their ears in it. So what? I remember the provos used to lick the altar rails of churches throughout the country. Did that mean no one else was allowed to believe in God? Is it guilt by association? The police force is enlisted on behalf of a widely discredited multi-national corporation. We remember the inheritance it left to Nigeria. It is speedily doing the same in the west of Ireland. It successfully divided a country and families in its exploitation of our national resources which we gave away for nothing. We do not even charge it tax.
An Cathaoirleach: I am sure we will have a debate. The Senator elaborated the argument for a debate very well.
Mr. Norris: The Cathaoirleach is kind. Part of any debate should examine the guardianship of resources by a Government which landed us in a series of lousy contracts. Not only did it hand away our resources to Shell Oil for some inexplicable reason, but we also have the M50, the link bridge which will be bought back for hundreds of millions of euro and PPARS. Something is rotten and it ought to be examined.
An Cathaoirleach: Many Senators are offering and I would like Senator Norris to be brief.
Mr. Norris: In that case, I support Senator O’Toole’s point on Irish. It is ridiculous and I am prepared to be far more blunt that he is. The Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, is single-minded. His old grandfather made Irish hated through this land by its compulsory nature and the Minister now hammers the last nail in the coffin. If someone in distress telephones a rape crisis centre, is it not heartless to present them with this garbage in Irish?
Dr. Mansergh: Oh come on.
Mr. Norris: Ordinary sensible people in this country will be revolted by this.
I ask for a debate on charities, particularly in the light of an all-party recommendation to the Minister for Finance, which will be discussed by the Fianna Fáil Party, to introduce legislation to re-direct credit card duty away from the Exchequer to charities. It would be a good and efficient way to support charities. It might mean we would not have so much of what is termed “chugging” or charity mugging on the streets of Dublin.

Private Members Debate on The Homeless - Wednesday the 15th November 2006

Private Members Motion on The Homeless – Wednesday the 15th November 2006

Mr. Norris: This is an important debate. I am sorry to see that once again the Government has introduced an amendment. We are all on the same side on this issue and it is unnecessary for this sort of amendment. All the amendment has done is remove some references from the motion and added more, mostly praise of the Government, but it is basically clear we are moving in the same direction. I am puzzled by the removal of any mention of Focus Ireland, the Simon Community, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and Threshold, particularly as the Government side of the House frequently invoke and praise these groups. I do not understand the reason these names had to be removed or why they were not acknowledged. The requests of the MakeRoom campaign are ones that are supported by the Government side, so I cannot understand why in the name of God we have this awful adversarial system.
Senator Minihan made an excellent contribution and I support his call for the removal of the habitual residence qualification, which principally affects people from European countries like Poland. In today's paper there is a sad picture of a young man unconscious in hospital. He collapsed outside the Merchant's Quay Project, which is among the groups that briefed us for this debate, and was taken to hospital where he has been unconscious ever since. His entire possessions consisted of a small amount of Polish currency. This situation is a reproach to all of us and one with which we must deal.
Who are the homeless? We know who they are because we have a definition in the Housing Act. The Act provides that a person is homeless:
If there is no accommodation available which, in the opinion of the authority, he, together with any other person who normally resides with him or who might reasonably be expected to reside with him, can reasonably occupy or remain in occupation of,...
or ...
(b) he is living in a hospital, county home ...
and has no other means.
The Merchant's Quay people have broken down the homeless into three categories. First, the visible homeless who are those people we see, even on the steps of our great public buildings. It is a cause of distress to many of us to see these people settling down for the night. These are not all stereotypical old people and drunkards, but young people who should be on the threshold of life. The second group is the hidden homeless who are people who are staying with relatives and so on who do not possess their own home.
The third group is the people at risk of homelessness. This is a growing section because, despite our increasing wealth and our satisfactory position on the world table, we have a situation where property is increasingly placed outside the capacity of young people to afford. The cost of housing has gone completely off the register. The house I bought in 1978 for €25,000 is now valued at €3.5 million, which is insane.
It is difficult to know how many homeless people we have. We can take a snapshot, but homelessness and the number of people we can detect as homeless change. There are approximately 5,000 homeless people. This is worrying and reflects the fact that housing has become increasingly unaffordable.
On the matter of affordable housing, it is a shame the Government has so often colluded with property developers in the avoidance of this responsibility. It has allowed them hand over parcels of useless land or money so that the middle class occupants of their developments will not be troubled or distressed by having to live beside people who come from a slightly different social background with a different accent. In 2002, there was a total of 102,000 local authority houses, but we had some 48,000 households on the waiting list. We need to take a look at this situation.
Homelessness has an impact on people's welfare. The average life expectancy of somebody on the streets is 42 years, yet this week we heard that women born today can expect to live to 100 years of age. People on the streets are also more prone to diseases such as TB and hepatitis and to drug addiction, etc.
I would like to end on a positive note. The ready for work programme is sponsored by the various groups involved in homelessness and by one of our banks. This initiative gives us a different view of the homeless who are often dismissed as shiftless or of having brought it on themselves. Since 2002, out of 178 referrals to the ready for work project some 118 or 66% began training. Of these, 95% completed the training and most went on to employment or to further training or education. It is marvellous that people from such a disadvantaged background could be assisted to get up and do something for themselves.
I like to put the human face on these issues. A woman was kicked out of home when she was 18 years of age and slept in doorways and begged all over the city. She now has two children and is in the business in the communities return to work scheme, assisted by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. She said: "It is very strange having people respect me, if you know what I mean. When I was on the streets I just kept my head down. No-one hardly ever looked at me. It was horrible. Looking back to that time, it was just what was happening". This is one person who has been given hope. We have the resources and can do it.
I salute Senator Ryan and his colleagues for putting forward this important motion and I hope that more will be done. We should stick together and should not be divided by silly, unnecessary, adversarial amendments.

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs - 7th November 2006 - Iran and Related Matters

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs - 7th November 2006 - Iran and Related Matters
Norris: It is always very welcome when either the Minister or Minister of State appears before this committee because it lends prestige to the work of the committee and is always a very useful exchange of views. I note that the items on the agenda are Iran and related matters. The Minister concentrated almost exclusively on nuclear matters. This is a very significant point. Deputy Mulcahy, with whom I have not always agreed, has focused on this area. The fact that the Minister is present today is a partly a response to Deputy Mulcahy’s work.
However, I was slightly surprised that there was no mention of Pakistan because I would have thought this a far more problematic area. Pakistan is ruled by a military dictatorship which is a fully nuclear regime with military potential. This regime has been notoriously leaky and wrought considerable damage in terms of the unauthorised dispersal of nuclear materials around the world, about which I am very concerned.
In respect of India, I note the coy phrase that as there is little or no practical prospect that India will ever join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the damage to the treaty is more notional than real. However, the fact that India is not party to the treaty, as Deputy Mulcahy noted, is not very helpful either. India’s position is not of any great assistance in this area.
I hope that there is a future in the prospect of nuclear fusion technology. A massive investment of €24 billion in an accelerator is on the horizon with the intention of seeing whether nuclear fusion can be realised as a practical objective. This would make the nuclear industry much safer and would also create a clear divide between the development of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and its development for military purposes. I hope that nuclear fusion, which has been perceived as a scientific fantasy for a long time, may now, as a result of this massive investment, come about.
I have two questions for the Minister. The first question is very much in concert with comments made by the two previous speakers. The Iranian Government has produced some obnoxious statements and its attitude towards the Holocaust is ghastly. It has made itself a pariah. However, a substantial number of comments made by the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are perfectly sensible. As I understand it, the Iranian position is that they have infringed no legally binding commitments under international treaties. Is this the case? Have the Iranians done anything wrong so far?
We are very suspicious and cautious but we must tread carefully because it might well be that what is involved is simply an attempt to provide electricity-generating capacity for the Iranian people. This is the clear and unambiguous statement and commitment of the Iranian Government. It may not be telling the truth but this is what it has said.
The situation in Iraq, in which we were walked into an appalling and catastrophic war by the ignorance, stupidity, immorality and criminality of the Anglo-American alliance, should make us very cautious before we assert that there are weapons of mass destruction all over the shop. These weapons might exist but we certainly need to know for sure.
I am not concerned exclusively with the hypothetical nuclear future. I am also concerned about the human rights of people in these situations as they exist locally. I draw the Minister’s attention to two cases I raised in Nairobi with the Iranian delegation at the assembly of the IPU. One is the case of a 16 year old mentally handicapped girl who was raped and subsequently hanged for crimes against chastity. That concerns me even more because that indicates an attitude such as the hypocrisy in America where the Reverend Haggard prates against gay marriage while entertaining himself with amphetamines and a male tart. A similar situation exists in Iran where people are using sexual prejudice to terrorise communities.
A second case I would like the Minister to raise directly with the Iranian ambassador, as I have done in a meeting with this committee, is that of two youths, aged 16 and 17, who were accused of having a sexual relationship by the morality police and who were beaten to a pulp in a police station. They were held for 14 months and then taken out and hanged in a public square from a crane mounted on a lorry. A decent, married couple from Cork sent me the photographs available on the Internet. If the Minister looked at them, it would add colour to his meetings with the Iranian ambassador. I am sure he, as a decent and sensitive man, would find it utterly morally repulsive.
We need not just concentrate on the nuclear issue; if we do, I would be interested in the views on Pakistan. We are also entitled, because the agenda for today states we are dealing with Iran and related matters, to be concerned about the use of such blackguardly moral terrorism and repression against defenceless young people in Iran simply for the purposes of terrorising the local population who are forced to witness this. On both occasions many were in tears at what was being done. We must side with those victims and the general population of Iran in whose name these things are being done but who are as horrified as we are as decent human beings.

Order of Business - 15th November 2006

Order of Business - 15th November 2006
Mr. Norris: I support the calls for a debate on the Leas Cross report. Over 100 people, which is a large number, seem to have died in the nursing home, some of whom apparently died unnecessarily. It seems the inspectorate is not working. I am particularly concerned about public facilities that care for the elderly, which are not inspected satisfactorily at all. We should have the Minister in the House to outline the level of inspection of State facilities.
I raise this issue because I had an interest in a patient in such a facility. As far as I could establish, the patient was reasonably well looked after but she developed bed sores. Most people believed, in their ignorant way, as I did, that bed sores just meant an old person was uncomfortable. However, they are a very serious matter and this became known after the revelations about Leas Cross. The woman in question was eventually hospitalised and died as a result of her bed sores. People are not aware of this problem. I am alarmed and concerned that the situation in these public institutions might be quite difficult.
May I also ask for a debate on the Shell to Sea campaign, in light of the Taoiseach’s extraordinary remarks at the weekend? He said, more or less, that dialogue was over and that no further correspondence on this issue would be entertained. I wonder about the fact that he seems to be aligning himself and the Garda with a malign multinational corporation.
Mr. Minihan: That is not true. He was upholding the law.
Mr. Norris: I saw footage down in Limerick at the weekend - I was at a police conference - of people being baton-charged. The police issued an edict that a perfectly legal and peaceful protest was to be banned. The people who were protesting were then baton-charged. I spoke to an independent reporter who had been asked what he was doing while he was standing on a ditch. When he said he was doing his professional work, he was batoned and kicked into the ditch and his camera was smashed. I ask the Taoiseach to remove the plough and the stars from his shoulders because he has certainly done in his socialist credentials. I wonder whether we will be treated to Government-sponsored evictions on behalf of banks and building societies as well.
Can we have a debate on the road tunnel? It has been announced that it will open on 20 December next. Serious concern has been expressed by the Irish Road Haulage Association, the members of which have a heavy professional commitment in this area, that dangerous flammable and toxic materials, including liquids, will be carried through the tunnel without the precautions which are in place in other countries. The road hauliers pointed out that when such materials have to go through much shorter tunnels in Britain, for example, the whole area is cleared and they are brought through in a convoy with flashing lights and with vehicles in front and behind, etc. The response of the man representing the civic authorities here was lamentable - he quoted statistics and said it was statistically unlikely an accident would happen. The problem with accidents is that they cannot be predicted. In light of what the road hauliers have said, it seems we would not be properly prepared if we had an accident here. We should bear in mind that fireballs have been experienced in some continental tunnels. The House would do the nation a service if it were to examine this issue and to consider whether the potential dangers and hazards could be avoided.

Order of Business - 9th November 2006

Order of Business - 9th November 2006
Mr. Norris: I also support Senator Brian Hayes’s comments regarding the Mater Hospital’s attack on the former cancer patient. This issue raises a serious problem. A good article by Mary Rafferty in today’s edition of The Irish Times points out that previously, the same hospital had problems when its ethical committee, from a narrow sectarian point of view, prevented people from getting cancer treatment drugs. She investigated the members of the board, one of whom is a Sister of Mercy and is the person who was responsible for negotiating the disgraceful deal on compensation.
The Mater Hospital will be the location of the new children’s hospital. I raised this issue some time ago and Members must reconsider this matter. It is outrageous that individuals should be subjected to such pressure from a legally bullying and factually inaccurate letter from a firm of Dublin solicitors.
I was amused to hear Senator Brian Hayes again raise the subject of Seanad reform. It would be great if he was serious in this respect.
Mr. B. Hayes: I am.
Mr. Norris: I would love to see all Members support real Seanad reform, which would include their own rotten constituencies. It would be a great day for Ireland if——
Mr. B. Hayes: The Senator should read the report.
Mr. Coonan: Is the Senator suggesting Members are not serious?
Mr. Norris: ——Members were like turkeys and voted for Christmas. I would stand against any Member in any constituency they wished.
Dr. Mansergh: People in glasshouses should not throw stones.
Mr. B. Hayes: The Senator should read the report.
Mr. Norris: Members should be realistic about this and should not start detracting from the university Members, who are the only democratic element in the entire House.
Mr. Norris: At least I have a few voters. You lot have less than 1,000. Make it 20,000 or 100,000 and——
Ms O’Rourke: The Senator should not come down to Longford-Westmeath.
Mr. Norris: —— Members would learn a little about democracy.
An Cathaoirleach: Order, please.
Mr. U. Burke: It would be the first time the Senator faced competition in his own constituency.
Mr. Norris: There is plenty of competition. The Senator can stand. I dare Senator Ulick Burke to stand in the Trinity constituency.
Mr. U. Burke: I already have a constituency.
Mr. Norris: While he could easily stand, I would wipe the floor with him.
Ms O’Rourke: He is already standing elsewhere.
An Cathaoirleach: Order, please. Has the Senator another point on the Order of Business?
Mr. Norris: On the question of children’s rights, all Members are in favour. Senator O’Toole rightly referred to the fact that while many people seem to think the noble provisions within the 1916 Proclamation are included within the Constitution, this is not the case. However, it refers the rights of the individual. Why not consider holding a referendum that would guarantee and underwrite people’s inalienable rights as individual citizens, rather than the rights of sections, groups, families, children or whatever?
I agree with Senator Ó Murchú’s powerful and passionate indictment of what has been happening in the Middle East. It is morally revolting and shaming to see attacks that routinely kill women and children. Is Ireland serious about this? The Minister should call in the Israeli ambassador to indicate Ireland’s revulsion in this regard. If we were really serious, we should reconsider the external association agreement with Israel, attached to which are human rights protocols. I have been making this point for the past three years. Failure to ever act on such protocols diminishes the standing of human rights.
As for the question raised concerning the attack on O’Connell Street, it is appalling that a young woman should be dragged down a street, pushed into an apartment block and then allegedly assaulted. One of the problems is that people are afraid to intervene. I have intervened on numerous occasions and I had to receive three stitches in my lip after one intervention. I was attacked two years ago and received——
Mr. Dardis: They obviously failed to sew up the Senator.
(Interruptions).
Mr. Norris: I was also attacked on another occasion. It is not funny. I am amazed Members find it entertaining that people get attacked. If they do find it entertaining, they are part of the problem. If they do not understand how serious it is to trivialise these situations, they are on the side of the attackers. At least, I did get stuck in.
Mr. Dardis: Oh, come on.
Mr. Norris: The point I was making was that many young people in this city take drugs like crack cocaine. One of my assailants was taking crack cocaine. I was walking down the boardwalk along the River Liffey last week when I saw three young lads smoking something in a glass pipe, which was obviously crack cocaine. People are afraid because those who take these drugs become out of control.

Order of Business - 9th November 2006

Order of Business - 9th November 2006
Mr. Norris: I also support Senator Brian Hayes’s comments regarding the Mater Hospital’s attack on the former cancer patient. This issue raises a serious problem. A good article by Mary Rafferty in today’s edition of The Irish Times points out that previously, the same hospital had problems when its ethical committee, from a narrow sectarian point of view, prevented people from getting cancer treatment drugs. She investigated the members of the board, one of whom is a Sister of Mercy and is the person who was responsible for negotiating the disgraceful deal on compensation.
The Mater Hospital will be the location of the new children’s hospital. I raised this issue some time ago and Members must reconsider this matter. It is outrageous that individuals should be subjected to such pressure from a legally bullying and factually inaccurate letter from a firm of Dublin solicitors.
I was amused to hear Senator Brian Hayes again raise the subject of Seanad reform. It would be great if he was serious in this respect.
Mr. B. Hayes: I am.
Mr. Norris: I would love to see all Members support real Seanad reform, which would include their own rotten constituencies. It would be a great day for Ireland if——
Mr. B. Hayes: The Senator should read the report.
Mr. Coonan: Is the Senator suggesting Members are not serious?
Mr. Norris: ——Members were like turkeys and voted for Christmas. I would stand against any Member in any constituency they wished.
Dr. Mansergh: People in glasshouses should not throw stones.
Mr. B. Hayes: The Senator should read the report.
Mr. Norris: Members should be realistic about this and should not start detracting from the university Members, who are the only democratic element in the entire House.
Mr. Norris: At least I have a few voters. You lot have less than 1,000. Make it 20,000 or 100,000 and——
Ms O’Rourke: The Senator should not come down to Longford-Westmeath.
Mr. Norris: —— Members would learn a little about democracy.
An Cathaoirleach: Order, please.
Mr. U. Burke: It would be the first time the Senator faced competition in his own constituency.
Mr. Norris: There is plenty of competition. The Senator can stand. I dare Senator Ulick Burke to stand in the Trinity constituency.
Mr. U. Burke: I already have a constituency.
Mr. Norris: While he could easily stand, I would wipe the floor with him.
Ms O’Rourke: He is already standing elsewhere.
An Cathaoirleach: Order, please. Has the Senator another point on the Order of Business?
Mr. Norris: On the question of children’s rights, all Members are in favour. Senator O’Toole rightly referred to the fact that while many people seem to think the noble provisions within the 1916 Proclamation are included within the Constitution, this is not the case. However, it refers the rights of the individual. Why not consider holding a referendum that would guarantee and underwrite people’s inalienable rights as individual citizens, rather than the rights of sections, groups, families, children or whatever?
I agree with Senator Ó Murchú’s powerful and passionate indictment of what has been happening in the Middle East. It is morally revolting and shaming to see attacks that routinely kill women and children. Is Ireland serious about this? The Minister should call in the Israeli ambassador to indicate Ireland’s revulsion in this regard. If we were really serious, we should reconsider the external association agreement with Israel, attached to which are human rights protocols. I have been making this point for the past three years. Failure to ever act on such protocols diminishes the standing of human rights.
As for the question raised concerning the attack on O’Connell Street, it is appalling that a young woman should be dragged down a street, pushed into an apartment block and then allegedly assaulted. One of the problems is that people are afraid to intervene. I have intervened on numerous occasions and I had to receive three stitches in my lip after one intervention. I was attacked two years ago and received——
Mr. Dardis: They obviously failed to sew up the Senator.
(Interruptions).
Mr. Norris: I was also attacked on another occasion. It is not funny. I am amazed Members find it entertaining that people get attacked. If they do find it entertaining, they are part of the problem. If they do not understand how serious it is to trivialise these situations, they are on the side of the attackers. At least, I did get stuck in.
Mr. Dardis: Oh, come on.
Mr. Norris: The point I was making was that many young people in this city take drugs like crack cocaine. One of my assailants was taking crack cocaine. I was walking down the boardwalk along the River Liffey last week when I saw three young lads smoking something in a glass pipe, which was obviously crack cocaine. People are afraid because those who take these drugs become out of control.

Order of Business - 8th November 2006

Order of Business – 8th November 2006
Mr. Norris: I am very happy to agree strongly with my colleague, Senator Mansergh, who called for a debate on Iraq, particularly in the light of the death sentence passed on Saddam Hussein. I have a long record over 20 years, as the Cathaoirleach knows, of opposing Saddam Hussein on human rights issues. However, it is not a coincidence that the announcement of the death sentence came just in the final moments of the American elections. President Bush has a habit, as he had even as Governor of Texas, of creating a few executions pour encourager les voters. I expect my honourable colleagues in Fianna Fáil will agree, although they have not said so, that it is a vitiation of the whole legal process. The court was established by an edict from Mr. Paul Bremner and the rules of evidence were interfered with. There was supposed to be an international conference to redress this, but it was scrapped. The government ministers prejudiced the trial by pronouncing him guilty and saying they were going to kill him before it started. One judge had to withdraw because of American pressure. Three of his attorneys were murdered. A trial judge was removed last week because they thought he was too sympathetic. It is a dreadful abandonment of all the principles of a fair trial, even for monsters. Senator Mansergh's suggestion of some type of internment camp for these monsters is very important. It is also significant, in my opinion, that the Americans again resisted any attempt to bring it under the auspices of the International Court of Justice. Of course they did because the final point I want to make-----

An Cathaoirleach: All of these matters will be points to be made by the Senator in the debate.

Mr. Norris: I am using these points as an argument to support Senator Mansergh's call for a debate. Bush and Blair are guilty of precisely the same crimes of which they are accusing Saddam Hussein, the use of chemical weapons, the mass murder of 650,000 civilians, the use of torture and all of these things. Please let us have a debate on this matter.
I want to raise a final matter, namely, that there should be a debate on the GAA. As a taxpayer-----

An Cathaoirleach: No, we cannot have that.

Mr. Norris: It is a wonderful institution, but as a taxpayer, I strongly object to my money being used to fund the type of disgraceful exhibition of-----

Mr. Coonan: It is close to the Senator's heart.

Mr. Norris: It is a disgrace. The Senator should grow up. We are living in the American empire, after all.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is being irrelevant.

Mr. Norris: As a taxpayer, I do not want my money used to fund a disgraceful exhibition, performed in front of 20,000 children.

An Cathaoirleach: Order, please, order. The Senator is being irrelevant.

Mr. Norris: The GAA regards the taxpayer as a rich tax cow and we are entitled to decent standards.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is out of order.

Mr. Norris: That is the situation and the Cathaoirleach knows it. It is just because his voters are involved-----

Order of Business - 2nd November 2006

Order of Business - 2nd November 2006
Mr. Norris: I support my colleague in what he said about Women’s Aid. It is a very valuable organisation, which has done tremendous work. The amount involved is negligible and the community gets a very good service from it. I also urge that this money be made available to it.
Regarding salmon, I unequivocally congratulate the Government and in particular the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, a brave, courageous and idealistic Minister who has a fine track record. He did the right thing on this occasion. I have spent the past few days castigating the Government side because I thought its nerve would wobble under the very understandable electoral pressure. I also congratulate the Acting Leader, Senator Dardis, who certainly fought this fight as we on this side also did. Well done and I am glad to have the opportunity to congratulate the Government.
However, in one final area I cannot congratulate any of us. I will give a few points which I would like taken up in discussion. I call for a debate on protection of consumers’ rights. In my opinion the consumer has no real protection. For example, we have no proper telephone service. We cannot get our phones serviced. It is never anybody’s responsibility. It is always franchised out. We are still paying foreign investors for landlines. It is a kind of absentee landlordism. How on earth are we putting up with it? The company tells us it is recording our phone calls. How dare it? It never asked my permission. I hear these bland announcements that the phone call will be recorded.
I opposed the lifting of the groceries order. However, there was a gathering rush by the so-called Competition Authority which could not even submit its views in time in a matter involving the oil industry. It failed to meet the deadline. The head of the body previously advised one of the companies, which is an extraordinary business. It is led on the other hand by a television entertainer, who at the moment is answering questions about his, apparently, quite honourable involvement in a failed investment company, in which at the time it collapsed he retained 24% or 25% of the shares. How can people be pushed into this? We know now that there has been no reduction in prices despite the suspension of the groceries order.
The banks refuse to deal with their customers on a human level. Many of us pay the highest possible rates to the Voluntary Health Insurance and are entitled to free treatment. Do we get free treatment? No, we must pay by cash or cheque with a banker’s card. We then need to do its paperwork to get money back eventually after it has invested it and got interest. There is no real protection. These are just a few areas. I am sure all my colleagues could produce other areas in which the consumer does not have his or her interests guaranteed or maintained.

Order of Business - 1st November 2006

Order of Business - 1st November 2006
Mr. Norris: I am glad that Senator Brian Hayes raised the question of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board and the ludicrous fact that it is paying out more in claims than is being spent by local authorities on fixing footpaths. The local authorities should be spending more on their footpaths. Three weeks ago I had a serious fall in Wicklow Street. I did not sue anyone because I do not believe in that but I welcome the opportunity to bring this to the attention of the House.
One of the problems is that the street surfaces in Dublin are either not properly maintained, being precipitous, dangerous and broken, or the wrong materials are used. I was on Wicklow Street where there is cobble lock which has designs in white ceramic tiling. It is very pretty but it is a death trap, the tiles are like ice. The Spire has an attractive metal surround but people fall on it every day of the week. The way the entire road surface in O’Connell Street is designed is thoroughly dangerous. There is no grip at all and elderly people are at serious risk.
Will the Seanad give an opportunity to consider No. 26, motion 3, in my name, on Tibet, especially in light of the appalling events there in recent days? A group of 40 Tibetan refugees attempting to escape across the Himalayas were set upon, attacked and shot in the back as they moved away. A 17 year old nun was killed. As usual, the Chinese lied about it, saying that the border guards were protecting themselves. Border guards should not be there; Tibet is not part of China. We are collaborating in this because we have allowed, without any debate in the Oireachtas, a shift in our position that accepts the incorporation of Tibet into China.
I also support Senator O’Toole in his remarks on climate change. We have been misled in this House and we have met complete and utter complacency. The Minister indicated that he knows damn well that we are going way beyond our Kyoto targets and those targets will not even rectify the situation. What is the answer? We are happily told that we will buy our way out of it. Buying carbon credits is the worst possible solution. We know how serious this is now as a result of Sir Nicholas Stern’s report. The British Government has at last woken up to the problem, appointing Al Gore to talk sense to the United States, because it is among the worst polluters. There should also be a debate on this, as outlined in No. 26, motion 21 on the Order Paper.
Will the Cathaoirleach intervene in another matter? Yet again today, and I am furious about this, as other Members should be, the House and the Cathaoirleach have been insulted by an Oireachtas committee. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport, of which I am a member and every meeting of which I have attempted to attend, has again, despite my protests and attempts to ensure it would not be quorate and despite my walking out last week, coincided the time of the committee meeting with the Order of Business in this House, showing complete contempt for it, as it does every week. We are apparently prepared to put up with that. Will the Cathaoirleach use his powers to ensure Seanad Éireann is treated with some respect?