Order of Business - 15th December 2006

Order of Business – 15th December 2006
Mr. Norris: I agree strongly with everything Senator Brian Hayes has said. The situation concerning BUPA is serious, but I am not surprised the Competition Authority came in late in the day. Did it not miss one of its own deadlines? I sincerely hope the Government will scrutinise the recommendations carefully. They were reluctant to come on the radio today to defend the situation that is mooted, whereby that VHI could be split up into four segments. My colleague, Professor Seán Barrett of Trinity College, who is a former candidate for the Dublin University Seanad panel, was extremely good on RTE today, although it galls me to say so. He said the splitting up of the VHI would be like creating four Aer Lingus companies. It is absolutely daft. Professor Barrett suggested that the problem might have been solved if BUPA had a dedicated telephone line which referred 25% of older patients to the VHI. It is a simple and practical measure. This matter should not be ideologically driven, however. At the end of the day, patients' care should be at the heart of the matter.
I know and respect Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan. The community is extremely lucky to have two such dignified, gracious and well advised women to take this case. It comes as something of a relief that I was contacted only once by a radio station yesterday, and its representative did not bothered to ring back for my views. I was not quoted in any of the newspapers, which to my mind shows the growing maturity of this society.
I am not the only one who is interested in this matter and neither am I a single issue person. This is a human rights matter which has been taken on by both Government and Opposition Senators. It is important to note that yet again a rebuke was delivered to the Oireachtas by a judge, who in this case indicated that we should have dealt with this a long time ago. We should do so. I have proposed a Bill, which has been revised, and I will propose it in the next session.
When I see that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Michael McDowell, is considering examining the issues, my feelings are like those of the Old Testament prophet who said, "How long, O Lord, how long?" He is a slow learner. For how long must these matters be examined? The Minister should get up and do something.
If others are not interested that is just too bad. Like the Government, they are probably suffering from what I can only describe as political attention deficit disorder. I hope the Government will concentrate on this issue because action on it is overdue. We now have an opportunity to deal with it. Both women in the case were gracious in their comments on the judge, even though they must have been stung. I have been there, too, and know what it is like to face this kind of reversal, but they were gracious in what they said about the judge and the court proceedings. I have proposed such a Bill and we should press ahead with it.
Christmas has been adverted to and while Members of this House are in a lucky and privileged position, there are others in this city who are not. They include the homeless who are lucky to have Sr. Stanislaus Kennedy. One point struck me from listening to the radio news programmes, which concerned a ship that has been impounded in Dublin port. This is the second ship belonging to Norfolk Lines that has been found to pay less than €1 per hour to its employees, while others have not been paid at all. More than $200,000 is owed to the crew. This is a form of indentured slavery and must end. It is not appropriate to treat seamen in this way. We have seen the Irish Ferries situation and there have been difficulties with other shipping lines also. This matter should be resolved quickly because it is wrong to have people stranded aboard a ship in Dublin port with no income.

Order of Business - 14th December 2006

Order of Business – 14th December 2006
Mr. Norris: There is no doubt that the situation relating to crime is serious. Falsifying statistics does not make the argument, however, and neither do wild statements about do-gooders having more regard for the human rights of accused people. That is simply not true. There is a case for considering establishing some kind of special court, not for the reasons given on the other side of the House, but because people such as Marlo Hyland make careers out of intimidating witnesses. As a result, people are terrified to give evidence and understandably so. That is a matter to which consideration must be given.
In my opinion, the criminal fraternity - if one can call them that and a despicable group they are - have created many difficulties and much trouble for themselves. In Chicago - Dublin is becoming very reminiscent of that city - when the St. Valentine's Day massacre and similar events occurred, the attention of the media, the public and the US Government became focused on the criminals involved and they were pursued and eventually apprehended. When our current difficulties commenced and gangland criminals began being killed, certain people, including a number of Members, said that it served them right and that they should be allowed at each other. However, the problem is that civilians will get caught up in the crossfire. When one accepts that one person has a right to take another's life - regardless of who they are - one is getting into real trouble.
An innocent young man doing his job lost his life because he was caught in the crossfire. It was heartbreaking to listen to the comments of members of his family. What a Christmas present his death is for them. Another person was killed in an incident that occurred in the heart of the International Financial Services Centre, our international flagship in the financial services sector. This does nothing for our image abroad and the Government must take action in respect of this matter.
I agree with Senator O'Toole regarding the wonderful information provided by the Library and Research Service of the Houses. I congratulate those who compiled this information, which is extremely helpful and highlights a number of matters to which consideration should be given. For example, the Library and Research Service found it difficult to provide data on waiting lists because there has been a break in the collection of such data. We must ensure that this never happens again. Another matter is the worrying rise in sexually-transmitted infections. The incidence of anal and genital warts has increased by a factor of eight since 1989.
In addition, since 1989, STIs such as genital chlamydia and non-specific urethritis have increased sixfold. We have ceased to talk about this in the House but we should.
An Cathaoirleach: We will not go through the list now.
Mr. Norris: I do not intend to but I have managed, through the Cathaoirleach's benevolence, to name the ones I wanted to mention.
I agree with the comments made about the unfortunate family in Limerick who had no connection whatever with crime. They are innocent but because they are seen as attracting unwelcome attention the community, instead of protecting them, appears to want to reject them. A total of 50 people signed that petition which was handed to the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea whose secretary delivered it to the city council. Deputy Peter Power, a representative from Limerick, refused to answer whether he had handed on a similar one. I would like to know if he did, and if so whether he attached a health warning to it.
As people will be travelling by road in this season when the light is bad I wish to raise an issue with the Minister for the Environment Heritage and Local Government. A man contacted me who must travel on a road where the hedgerow and trees extend over the road scratching the paintwork on his car and making it almost impossible to see. When he complained to Mayo County Council he received the following answer:
I have been given strict instructions this year to minimise the amount of work been done to trim hedges on these minor roads. Due to this budgetary constriction I cannot guarantee that your road will be trimmed this year as it has been several years since other minor roads have had their hedges trimmed.
How is that for safety in rural Ireland?

Irish Film Board (Amendment) Bill 2006 - 13th December 2006

^ Irish Film Board (Amendment) Bill 2006 – Second Stage Debate – 13th December 2006
Mr. Norris: This is important legislation. We must keep the film industry going and Senator Mansergh is correct in that regard. I share some of his favourite films. "Barry Lyndon" was a superb film. It was made at Huntingdon Castle in Clonegal. The film crew put an extra wing on the castle which the owners were reluctant to demolish because it improved the castle's appearance.
The industry is a big income earner. There are many important back-up personnel for the industry in this country. Technical staff such as sound operators, cameramen, electricians, set designers, wardrobe directors-----

Mr. McCarthy: Make-up artists.

Mr. Norris: Absolutely. These are important people. Senator McCarthy might have meant his mention of make-up artists as a joke-----

Mr. McCarthy: I did not.

Mr. Norris: I am glad to hear it. There was a smile on his face and I mistook that to mean he was joking. In fact, I believe an Irish make-up artist received an Oscar or a similarly important award in Los Angeles in recent years. We should be very proud of the industry.
There must be something dreadfully wrong in the air because I must agree with Senator Mansergh for a second time in the space of a few minutes. He is correct that there is strong competition. While we have a remarkable country of natural beauty, scenic availability and reasonable light for film making, many other European countries can offer the same. We need the additional seed money for projects in addition to understanding and acknowledging the talent in this country.
I have mentioned the technical personnel but we also have superb actors. Sometimes we treat them simply as objects of gossip. Gabriel Byrne, for example, is a wonderful actor. Angeline Ball is another. I have seen "Molly Bloom" until she is coming out of my ears, so to speak, and I have seen her represented by international actors of the greatest distinction but I have never seen a rendition that could hold a candle to Angeline Ball in that wonderful film, "Bloom", by Sean Walsh. He is a courageous man who had the guts and gumption to take on James Joyce's regrettable grandson and win. That is something.
We have not always fostered the film industry. I am glad the Minister has chosen to do so and to ensure sufficient money is available. I recall gallant people such as the late Liam O'Leary. Without him and his archiving skills we would have lost an enormous amount of very valuable cine reality. We would have lost entire productions. Rex Ingram, for example, was one of the crucial figures in the development of Hollywood in the 1920s. He made a film entitled "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" and at least one reel of the film went missing. Nobody in the world had it until Liam O'Leary unearthed it.
I pay tribute to a man I am honoured to know, George Morrison. The Minister launched a remarkable DVD, "Mise Éire", which George put together from archive material from the 1916 and Civil War periods. He followed it with another DVD called "Saoirse". He commissioned the music from the late Seán Ó Riada. It is a masterpiece of Irish cinema.
He was paid approximately £150 for it and got no repeat fees. He was neglected as an artist for many years. He had a project to make a film about James Joyce, which was turned down by the Government of the day as an unsuitable topic.
However, I am glad to say that Mr. Morrison was honoured by the present Minister, who launched this CD. Although he is in his 80s and has suffered a stroke, Mr. Morrison made a remarkable speech and is at work on another film. I am engaged in a small way with him and it is an honour to be involved with such a great artist. I bemoan the days when people such as Mr. Liam O'Leary and Mr. Morrison were so neglected. I hope those days are gone. It is not just a question of money but of the image Ireland presents to the world. It can be an effective instrument in representing a positive version of this country, which we love.

Statements on Garda Reform - 13th December 2006

Statements on Garda Reform – 13th December 2006
Mr. Norris: I also welcome the Minister. He has been most generous with his time and he has shown great respect for the Seanad by the way in which he has introduced Bills and made himself available to listen to debates such as this one. As a Member of this House, I welcome that.
I wish to refer to a number of matters raised in the Minister's speech before coming to other matters. The first is his acknowledgment that two detectives deliberately planted a weapon at a Traveller campsite, allegedly with a view to ensuring a search under section 29 would be successful. That is a really worrying situation.
Mr. Vincent Browne has done a service to the nation by his dramatisations and inquisitions night after night into these various tribunals, including the one which I believe is properly known as the McBrearty tribunal. It would only be just for the State to pay for the legal costs of the McBrearty family because, as was made clear on one of these programmes, it is not a level playing field. Even accused, impugned gardaí who are in a delicate position have massive support from their organisations and, thereby, from the State. I accept there are some legal technicalities involved but, in fairness, it would be a very good thing.
Senator Jim Walsh referred to whistleblowers. Thank God he did not get into his stride because I have to attend a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and if he had, I would never get to make my passionate plea for the metro. Let me say a word about the whistleblowers in these two Houses of the Oireachtas, namely, Senator Jim Higgins and Deputy Howlin. They were the ones who brought this matter to public attention, and they did so in the belief that they were covered by parliamentary privilege. It appears that was not completely so and they got into a great deal of difficulty.
This House also experienced difficulty in supporting them in terms of their legal costs. That is dreadful. I urge the Minister to examine this matter further to see whether there are any imperfections in the matter of parliamentary privilege so that honest and decent Members who do the community a service by whistleblowing are protected. One of the things we value most is our parliamentary immunity. It is one of the great safeguards of democracy. I cannot hear what the Minister is mumbling but I am sure I will find out.

Mr. M. McDowell: I just wonder how many more sets of costs I will have to pay before Senator Norris is finished.

Mr. Norris: I commended the Minister's party and ministerial colleague, the former Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, because she was accused by the newspapers of saving money. I said I thought it was a very good thing and she should not be penalised for it. Perhaps some of the money the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, is saving can be used for this purpose. The Minister could hardly suggest Deputy Howlin and Senator Jim Higgins did not give the State sterling service. It is wrong that they were put under such pressure as a result. The Minister may take a different view.
I know the Minister agrees with me about one matter, although that was not always the case, namely, warrants issued under section 29. I am sure he will remember when the Bill was going through the House, I was one of those who questioned the role of the police in being allowed to issue warrants. I suggested this should be a judicial function rather than a function of the police. I am pleased the Minister stated, as a result of some of these reports, that he is seriously concerned about this operation and is trying to replace section 29 to define as closely as possible the exceptional circumstances in which warrants may be issued by members of the Garda Síochána. The issuing of warrants by the Garda should be very restricted. It is worrying that the police should take any judicial function, which it appears to me they are doing by issuing warrants. I hope the Minister gives the matter close attention.
I have a high regard for the Garda Síochána. I have had virtually nothing but good relations with them. They are a sterling force of which we can, by and large, be proud. There were a few difficulties in the old days when I was active in the gay community, so to speak. We knew there were one or two police stations that were really frightful because they had a bee in their bonnet about the issue and they knew they had a soft target. That is really the only thing about which I can complain.
I urge the Minister to emphasise the role of community policing. In my area of north inner city Dublin, we had a couple of extraordinarily good, engaging young police officers. They were terrific. They got to know the community and made friends there. Information was passed to them because people liked and respected them. That is what we need.
I do not think there is anything peculiar in the air in County Donegal. Having praised Mr. Vincent Browne I now utter an appeal to him, which I doubt he will hear from here, to lay off now because I am suffering from McBrearty fatigue.

Mr. J. Walsh: I would say the Minister is too.

Mr. Norris: What I said previously stands, but one can have enough. It would be incorrect to assume these matters are confined to the County Donegal area. It is necessary to keep an eye on the situation. The Minister will be familiar with the old Latin tag, quis custodiet ipsos custodes, who will guard the guards themselves? We need to keep an eye on this to ensure these practices do not spread. It is a pity that one or two of the detectives involved there appear to be decent people who were led astray. That is a cause of great concern.
I am pleased the Minister approved of the Birmingham report, given its comparative rapidity, the surgical skill displayed and the lack of enormous fees associated with it. As he is in the House, I also commend Senator Maurice Hayes. He was centrally involved in the Patten report. The experience he gained there will undoubtedly be of use in terms of what is recommended in the various reports recently made available to the Minister. There is no doubt the Patten report was a significant one.
I am tired of the constant bickering over Garda numbers. I urge the political parties to lay off trying to confuse people about numbers. I have listened to the debate and it appears to me the Minister is approximately correct. It depends on the snapshot date at which the numbers are taken. One can argue the toss but that leads both sides into folly.

Mr. Cummins: There was not a word about numbers today.

Mr. Norris: I know that. I do not accuse Senator Cummins at all. He might well have been called Himmler if he had referred to numbers.

Mr. M. McDowell: I think it was Goebbels.

Mr. Norris: I know it was, but the Minister has already used the Goebbels analogy so I thought he might like another little smear and Himmler is more suited to Senator Cummins as he has glasses.
It is most unfortunate that people would play politics with these numbers because they are approximately correct. It would be fair enough if there was a real problem. That is partly due to the Garda reserve, etc. I welcome that fact. I compliment the Minister, to whom I am not always complimentary, on facing down a mini-revolt in the Garda by sticking to his position. He said he was Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, that he was introducing this measure which was done democratically and passed by the Oireachtas and all the rest of it, and that was it and eventually it was accepted. The Minister won. That was a good day for democracy. The experience of other police forces, including on the neighbouring island, has shown that while it is not a replacement for the police, a reserve force can help.
I approve of civilianising the police force. It is idiotic to have qualified policemen and women answering telephones, typing letters and manning computers. I accept there are times when this is necessary but no garda should be exclusively pinioned into this position. I welcome the recommendation that a civilian should be appointed at deputy Garda Commissioner level dealing with administration and human resource management.
That is very good and I would like to see as much replacement as possible of gardaí engaged in office work. I commend those responsible for the report and I commend the Minister because it appears he is going to take the recommendations on board.
I have here an article which actually approves of this as it states that it allows secretaries, receptionists, analysts, senior crime officers, financial personnel and anything else that is appropriate to be made up of civilians. It goes on to state that this is one of the most difficult areas to bring about in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I would not be surprised if it was my colleague over there who forged this because he or somebody has come up with the very happy phrase, "Many police officers do not mind being in the comfort and warmth of the barracks rather than out on the streets." One can understand that and empathise with the human situation, but when faced with the difficulties with which we are faced, I do not think we can take as a major consideration the comfort, the warmth and security of the barracks as opposed to how hot and cold the weather is out on the streets.
Both the Minister and his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, have been involved in the establishment of joint policing committees. On Monday last I attended my first meeting of the central sub-committee of the joint policing committee in Store Street Garda station, having volunteered to do so. It was extremely useful. It was entertaining in some ways to see a representative of Sinn Féin chairing it and sitting next to a chief inspector. I rather enjoyed that and it shows we have travelled a certain distance. The matters that come under review are very ordinary and humble matters such as litter, vandalism, anti-social behaviour, public drunkenness and so on.

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

Mr. Norris: I hope it will be as flexible as Senator Walsh's minute. The problem of drunkenness needs to be looked at. The Minister needs to look at the licensing laws because they are far too vague. I complained about licensing laws and I got into severe trouble, but the Minister knows every huckster's shop in this town is stuffed to the roof with vodka.
I wish to raise one other matter - I have a flexible minute remaining - and that is the issue of drugs. Everyone is looking for a solution to the drugs problem. There is one, but it is a difficult one to take. The Minister will definitely not agree with me on this, given what he has said so far. I believe it has got to be tackled at an international level. It will not be helped by the fact that large countries such as the United States have been clearly involved in massive narcotics trafficking in order to fund the undermining of democratically elected regimes, such as in Nicaragua where the Contras were massively funded by narcotics trafficking in which the Americans were openly involved. Let us look at the situation in Uzbekistan where the US and Britain turn a blind eye to the enormous narcotics traffic under the aegis of President Karimov. If international agreement could be obtained it would help to legalise, licence and control it. This would ensure that crime levels would drop massively, addicts would be less prone to die because they would get a quality controlled substance, life would be better all around and the godfathers would be wiped out because what is driving this is the financial incentive.
We found a tonne of cannabis in Westmeath or somewhere, but so what? It simply has not stemmed the tide of drugs; it does not work. All it does is drive up the cost of drugs and the guns come in because of this. One has to look at the whole issue of drugs internationally. With the best will in the world one will never win the alleged war on drugs. It is as specious as the war on terror. One has to understand the enemy rather than denounce it and be prepared to take unpopular steps. There are senior police officers all over Europe who will say exactly the same. Ireland cannot do it on its own. These discussions should start now if we are really serious. We know the practice on the streets already.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator's time has concluded.

Mr. Norris: I recognise the minute was definitely flexible. We are doing it already in a minor way by the provision of methadone maintenance programmes. We should look honestly at them. I did not come up with this solution on my own. I heard this being advocated 15 years ago from the Fianna Fáil benches in the Seanad by its then spokesman on health, Dr. John O'Connell.

Mr. M. McDowell: Enough said.

Order of Business - 13th December 2006

Order of Business – 13th December 2006
Mr. Norris: I agree with some colleagues on this side of the House that elderly people are terrified. They are terrified because of the lies told by the newspapers and the disgraceful language employed in attacking a decent woman who is doing her best and has provided an interesting idea. This House should tell the truth on what is involved. I deplore the fact that old people are being unnecessarily frightened. When I am gone, I will not be living in the house. Let them sell it, or do whatever they like with it. I have no objection to paying my share for being cared for and it is odd that people object to this. The Minister for Health and Children seeks to protect people's interest in the property while they are alive. They have no quantifiable interest in it when they are dead.
I seek a debate on No. 17, which asks the Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism to provide an update on the Abbey Theatre. Yesterday a small premises of no architectural distinction but of some historical interest was welcomed as a site. It is behind the Carlton site on O'Connell Street where the Abbey Theatre should be. It is an outrageous proposal at the instigation of a billionaire businessman that the Abbey Theatre should be located at an unsuitable site on George's Dock, taking over the principal water feature. As everybody knows, it is not the best site. The Minister wanted the Abbey Theatre to be on O'Connell Street. It is outrageous that a small group of property developers and speculators can sit on the asset, leaving a scar on our main street and refuse to allow it to be developed in the national interest. The Taoiseach should use his well-reputed negotiating skills to resolve this situation.
I agree with Senator O'Toole on the management companies of apartment complexes. I have raised this scandal in the House previously. A developer holds one flat so that he or she can control the situation on a legal technicality. The tenants are not allowed the democratic right to elect a committee, the developer appoints his cronies to clean and maintain the property and services are not provided. I passed a dossier on this matter to a friend and colleague who is now an auctioneer. In his new profession he will take up this matter with great vigour.
The Leader should ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to inquire of the Israeli authorities the fate of Mordechai Vanunu, who was imprisoned for telling the truth about the Israeli nuclear facility. Now that Ehud Olmert let slip that Israel is a nuclear power, will Israel remove sanctions against the honourable and decent whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu?

Genealogy and Heraldry Bill 2006 - Second Stage Debate - 12th December 2006

Genealogy and Heraldry Bill 2006 – Second Stage Debate – 12th December 2006

Mr. Norris: Whatever about heraldry, it is refreshing to discover that the art of prophesy has not vanished from the earth because Senator Kieran Phelan who, I am glad to say, is a representative of one of the distinguished septs of my own part of the country, Ossory, was able to imagine or prophesy in his typed-up script what Senator Ryan said. The Minister said on page three of his script or whatever it was - I pointed it out at the time - that nothing he had heard today had convinced him. He had not heard it when the speech was typed up so it is a complete and utter nonsense.
We are used to this in this House. We get it on matters relating to Standing Order 29 all the time. One puts down that one wishes to raise a motion under Standing Order 29 and the Cathaoirleach po-facedly says that he does not believe anything is contemplated by this Standing Order, no matter what it is. It does not matter whether it was an armed insurrection in Listowel or a volcano in Dún Laoghaire, it is not contemplated under Standing Order 29. This is all typed up and written out before we get to the point.
The Minister is a thoroughly decent man and I have many reasons to be grateful to him and not only for his enthusiastic support of cultural life in Ireland, in particular my own little baby, the James Joyce Centre in Dublin. The late Terry O'Sullivan, who wrote the Dubliner's Diary, after a huge feast of drink went back and snored in the offices of The Irish Press. Somebody asked him if he was going to write up the column after filling his face with all their food and drink and he said: "Let us astonish them by our ingratitude." I propose to astonish the Minister with my ingratitude and say that was an absolutely pathetic speech. I do not believe he concocted it himself. This was obviously a set up.
There is clearly a case for the proper authorisation of heraldry. Again, I can perhaps understand the feeling of the Department because this was also concocted by the people in the Genealogical Society of Ireland, and more power to them. We all get the society's gazette, called The Genie Gazette, which is sometimes very interesting. It is important we regulate the area for a number of reasons, one of which is the scandal that surrounded the MacCarthy Mór, which was a dreadful affair. It was laughable in one sense that this fellow was floating around Tangier with his boyfriend behind him and a poodle on a pink cushion claiming to be the MacCarthy Mór. Apparently, the nincompoops over here actually recognised him. How farcical can one get? One has to establish something that gets away from this sort of thing.

Mr. O'Donoghue: I can tell the Senator that he was not the Kerry MacCarthy Mór.

Mr. Norris: History does not reveal which part of the globe he originated from, but he ended up in Tangier.
In his speech, the Minister is certainly right about the question of the Gaelic chieftains. This is a very interesting area because it is so full of contradiction and paradox. I have a cousin of some kind who is, or styles himself, the MacGiolla Phádraig. He is certainly the descendent of the last one that was duly elected as chief of that clan. It was done by election. There was a kind of central family stem and from within that, the leader of the family was, more or less, elected. They were pretty grim in the way they did it. There are records in my mother's family of people putting out their own brother's eyes because one could not be an Irish chieftain if one was blind. They made bloody sure they were blind so they could not be elected.
If one looks at the chiefs that are recognised, many of them belonged to the Church of Ireland. I find this fascinating. The MacGiolla Phádraig obviously belonged to the Church of Ireland, while the O'Hara, the O'Grady in Killballyowen and the MacGillycuddy of the Reeks from the Minister's constituency were also members. Interestingly, the two most wonderful and romantic titles, and, essentially, it is all about romance, are the O'Conor Don and the MacDermott, Prince of Coolavin. Since it is now said that one can make oneself an Irish chief, I think I might do so. Senator Ross made himself an auctioneer on "The Late Late Show". I propose to award myself a title, which I hope will be recognised and observed by my colleagues in Seanad Éireann.
There is, however, a certain seriousness about the matter, even though it is full of fantasy, fun, vexillology and what not. There is a legal problem about the granting of coats of arms. If, as a republic, we decided to abolish the whole thing, this would have been one situation, but we did not. We then purported to grant arms to people such as President Kennedy, a former President of the US, for the younger members of the House who do not recall that period of history. President Robinson and the current President McAleese have also been granted coats of arms.
If one looks inside the Oak Room in the Mansion House in Dublin, one can see all kinds of coats of arms, some of which are the real coats of arms of the ancient Irish or Norman families. Some of them are completely concocted. It is very interesting to see them. It may well be that many of these, especially the grants made to distinguished visiting persons, are challengeable internationally. We can call them what we like. The biggest pedants on this matter are the British. We inherited the system from them in 1943 - the Ulster King of Arms and so on. Nobody was appointed for quite a long time, which creates a gap. One is in a situation where one must abolish and then recreate. This Bill would be a very good point.
I thought the Minister was very dismissive about the need for these kinds of records. I do not think it is appropriate just to have it as a kind of appendage in the National Library that can be dismissed. I am not denigrating the National Library in this. Serious historical and scholarly work can be done on coats of arms which reveals interesting things.
Even though my surname is English, my mother was a descendant of a very old Gaelic Irish family. I was unearthed because of a more distinguished uncle, who is deceased, by people who asked if there were any relatives and asked to go to the Fitzpatrick Clan rally. I love and adore any kind of hokum like that. I attended the rally and poor old Denys in Key West in Florida, who was aged 101 at that stage, sent over a message as the MacGiolla Phádraig.
There were a couple of very interesting lectures, one of which was about the crest which features a green dragon and a lion rampant. The lecturer on this subject indicated that at various times, the positions and dimensions of these two animals changed. One could tell the temperature of Irish political life as far as the Gaelic nation was concerned by the relative size and aggressiveness of the two animals, which is very interesting. The items featured in the coats of arms are often indicators of the family business and connections. I suppose trade would have been more or less excluded. I think we in Ireland were much less coy about accepting trade.

There is a great deal of interest in this and for this reason and no other, it

would be very important to consider something such as Senator Ryan's Bill.

Having reprimanded the Minister in a jocose way, I would like to say that was

the printed script.

Senator Ryan would, however, be well advised to accept the generous offer the Minister made when he spoke off the cuff and stated that he would, if the Bill were withdrawn, refer the matter back to the people in the National Library who are genuinely interested in it to see what legislative proposals might come about as a result.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is that of recognition of excellence. Most societies like to recognise excellence and there is nothing very much on offer in Ireland in that regard. Perhaps we should consider reviving the Knights of St. Patrick, among whose number were a number of the old Irish families, including mine. I was pleased, when attending a recent concert at St. Patrick's Hall, to see the flag of my family on display. Reviving the Knights of St. Patrick would be a worthwhile. One could not refer to a member of the Most Illustrious Order of St. Patrick as "Sir". In any event, courtesy titles are not supposed to be used - I do not believe Mr. O'Reilly is aware of this fact - in a republic.
I am happy to await the revival of the Gaelic monarchy, if the O'Conor Don can be located. As far as I am aware, such an individual still exists. I am comfortable enough with the Republic but some recognition of merit would be a useful and decent development, and the taking of action in this regard should be considered.
I wish to spar with Senator Ryan regarding the term "vexillogical". Information regarding this could easily have been included in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. The latter should explain things. Most people do not know what vexillogical means and the majority cannot even pronounce it. I am going to be blazingly honest and state that if the word "vexillogical" had been presented to me on an otherwise blank sheet of paper, I would have been hard put to guess at its meaning. However, I worked out what it means from the context in which it is used. As a member of the universal and infallible church which he claims as his own, I have no doubt that Senator Ryan is, as he informed the House,again correct with regard to his definition of "vexillogical". However, that excludes the matter of courtesy. One would have thought that the latter would have been appropriate in a Bill that deals with heraldry. As a courtesy to plain, honest, decent, ordinary citizens not yet ennobled by the State, it might have been useful to provide us with a definition of the term.
I wish Senator Ryan well with the Bill. Outside of the fun we are having, there is something to be said for regularising the position. Even if one does not believe in it or is not interested in the romance - I described it as hokum - or the history and the important historical elements involved, one must consider the tourism aspect. The yanks are obsessed with their ancestry and we can fleece them for the privilege of discovering it, if we have at our disposal the correct machinery. I am all in favour of the latter. It is important that we do not make prats of ourselves by handing out coats of arms that could, in the absence of a proper legislative basis, be challenged by our cousins across the water.
I exaggerated the amount of time the Minister spent discussing the Bill. I estimate that less than 25% of his contribution was devoted to the legislation, which he dismissed. The Minster spent his time, as usual, engaging in dreary self-congratulation regarding what has been done for the National Library - I accept his bona fides in this regard - and other cultural institutions. He also highlighted his interest in the Abbey Theatre. We will spend another day debating that matter because I have tabled a motion in respect of the Abbey. We should move the theatre not to the docklands but to O'Connell Street, where it belongs. It is appalling that a small cabal of business people and property speculators can sit on the Carlton site and blow a raspberry at the Government and the people.
Everybody knows that if, sadly, the Abbey Theatre cannot remain on its historic site at Abbey Street, where it should be located, it most certainly not act as an anchor in a commercial development and as a little piece of the jigsaw that is the Financial Services Centre. The Abbey should be for the people of Ireland and it should be located on the main thoroughfare of the capital city. As a national cultural institution, the theatre should be used to lift the northern axis of our principal thoroughfare out of the oblivion and mire of chip shops and knicker sale rooms into which it has sunk.
Since the Minister opened the debate on this matter, I am glad to state that I have a motion in respect of it on the Order Paper. I will be seeking that he come before the House to explain why the Abbey Theatre should not be located in O'Connell Street. While we are at it, perhaps we could arrange some small but significant tribute to Daniel O'Connell. I heard a radio interview the other day in which the Minister, or one of his colleagues in Government, referred to digging up the Manchester Martyrs. Why is it only the violent tradition of Ireland that is celebrated?

Mr. Norris: Why not celebrate Daniel O'Connell, the great pacifist, the Liberator, the man who, for the sake of not shedding blood, cancelled the last of his monster meetings?

Order of Business - 12th December 2006

Order of Business – 12th December 2006

Mr. Norris:I agree with Senator White. I thought the headlines were appalling
and irresponsible. The Minister has put forward an interesting proposal. A
degree of sensitivity is required. It is possible to add to it because there is
potential for unfairness.
There are different values for houses and it may affect some people more than others. I have worked with Age Action Ireland and have heard it refer to this as an example of ageism. What does it expect in old people's homes? It is not a maternity ward. Of course it affects these people. This kind of silly comment is regrettable. I do not believe there is as much interest as people posture about either in the newspapers or politically even in this House. I spoke in the debate last week and it collapsed.

On drugs, I share the horror at the death of this young man. It was only a matter of time before there were civilian casualties in this war. It is a very problematic area. This country cannot handle it on its own. It is an international problem. I take the very unpopular but realistic view that we need to legalise, license and control these substances. What is driving the trade internationally is the profit motive. Many of the countries that are strongest in their condemnation of drugs are the very ones that fuel it, such as the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom, which turn a blind eye to the convoys going through Uzbekistan for their own political reasons.
I join my colleagues in calling for a debate on the Middle East. Although I share Senator Ryan's views on the dreadful plight of the Palestinians, I regret that, Ismail Haniyah, the Prime Minister designate of Palestine, said in Tehran that he was on a jihad that would not end until the city of Jerusalem was re-conquered. Will the Leader request the Minister for Foreign Affairs to call in the Iranian ambassador and rebuke him for the conference that is taking place? It is outrageous that this happens.

Mr. Mooney: Hear, hear.

Mr. Norris: The denial of the Holocaust is a catastrophic moral blemish on the people of Iran.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator-----

Mr. Norris: The people from the West should have gone there to tell the truth. My final point is-----

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is getting great latitude.

Mr. Norris: An honourable Palestinian delegate from Nazareth wanted to attend and say that the Holocaust had happened. The Iranians, having issued an international invitation, refused to allow him to attend. They should have been shown up by every reputable scholar from the West turning up there to tell the truth.

Health (Nursing Homes) (Amendment) Bill 2006 - Second Stage Debate - 7th December 2006

^ Health (Nursing Homes) (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage. – 7th December 2006

Mr. Norris: I have spoken on the issue of nursing homes on a number of occasions, but not on this Bill, of course. I am reluctant to regurgitate what I have said on the subject before. However, this is a very important area and it has been highlighted by the media, in particular the investigations by RTE and others into the tragic situation at Leas Cross.
From the outside, what a lovely place it looked. One would imagine everybody was comfortable and well cared for. Then we learned that the situation was not as it appeared once one was inside. I listened to a woman on radio the other day who told a tragic story about her father. He had been very active, went into Leas Cross, I believe, and had a series of illnesses complicated by minor strokes as well as lung infections.
The woman visited one day and her father was not well. The next day they said he was better. They wheeled him out in a type of pram with a rug around his legs, his spectacles stuck on his face and the newspaper on his lap. The man was dying, but this was all just cosmetic to persuade the relatives that he was improving. The relatives insisted on an ambulance being called and waited a considerable time, but nothing happened. Eventually the daughter said they would take the man to hospital in their own car because the nursing home people had first of all said, "There is no admission from here", which was a very strange phrase to use.

Ms O'Rourke: Where was "here"?

Mr. Norris: It was Leas Cross, I believe, and there was no admission. In other words, they did not want to send patients from Leas Cross. Again, when one considers the phrase, "bed blockers", it precisely fits the description of people such as this old man. People describe them as bed blockers. That has ramifications whereby people do not want them admitted to hospital. It is a dreadful phrase-----

Mr. S. Power: It is terrible.

Mr. Norris: -----but in any case, they found that the ambulance did not turn up. A real ambulance had not been called, rather a type of patient care vehicle. It was only when the family said they were taking him into hospital that an ambulance was produced. In the event, that ambulance was there in ten minutes, so sometimes the services exist, but are not properly being called on.
There is a growing problem for a variety of reasons. First of all, Ireland has changed in social terms. We do not have the extended family any longer. This is having major effects. I expressed concern yesterday on the Order of Business about the alleged extraordinary high levels of what was described as psychiatric illness among children. If it is true that one fifth of children suffer from serious psychiatric illness, then it is not just the children who should be examined but the whole organisation of society. Again it strikes me that the extended family norm no longer exists.
For a variety of reasons an increasing number of people make use of services of this type and in some cases this is not entirely appropriate. I heard a woman speak on this subject who said she had been running a nursing home for the past 30 years and that it had changed significantly because of the increased number of elderly people with severe Alzheimer's disease who needed one-to-one care virtually around the clock. She said nursing homes were not in a position to provide this care. It is wrong to blame nursing homes if there are people in them who are not appropriate candidates for this type of treatment. We must look very closely at the issue of Alzheimer's disease.
I am very concerned about the inspection of nursing homes. It seems to me that particularly since Leas Cross, private nursing homes are subject to inspection. I am much less happy about publicly funded nursing homes because we hear so little about what goes on in them. If, in the regime of nursing homes for which patients pay enormous amounts of money and relatives routinely visit, almost nothing is heard about the situation in State-funded and State-run homes, there is an urgent case for a proper inspection regime for such institutions and I do not believe this is happening.


By coincidence I have just left the restaurant where I spoke to somebody who

is not a Member of the Oireachtas but is a crucial part of the parliamentary

system, namely, Ms Anne Byrne, a programme manager to Deputy Howlin.

Acting Chairman: The Senator is aware he should not refer to people in that manner.

Mr. Norris: I beg the Acting Chairman's pardon. I did so in the most positive possible manner. However, the name cannot now be withdrawn. In any event, she is representative of-----

Mr. S. Power: Members will keep it secret.

Mr. Norris: They will. However, there is a large number-----

Ms O'Rourke: She is a very nice woman.

Mr. Norris: She is. She is much better than nice as she is also very effective and capable.

Acting Chairman: This is getting worse.

Mr. Norris: As my good friend, the Leader of the House, is aware from her own ministerial responsibilities, a number of people in Departments never receive the accolades they deserve.
Some years ago, an aunt of mine who had reached her 90s needed to enter a home. She decided on this herself and, while I was abroad, had gone in and out of a particular place, which turned her down. She was extremely upset because she thought it was because she was too old. I wrote to the home to ask whether that was the reason and in any event to let me know whether there was anything I could do for them, because it was such a wonderful place. They did their own baking and at Hallowe'en, the attendants dressed up as witches, which was good fun. Everyone knew one another and had their independence. They had their own little rooms in which they could have their glass of sherry.

Ms O'Rourke: Lovely.

Mr. Norris: It was marvellous. Moreover, there was a smell of cooking from the kitchen. They did not use bought-in television dinners, rather they made their own bread and all the rest of it. It was lovely.
Its managers immediately wrote to me and asked me to visit them at once. It was run by the old girls of Alexandra College, who were charming. It was a real old-style St. Trinian's effort. However, they did not operate in the real world at all. They charged something like €200 a month for the service, which would not even cover the cost of the food. I told them to take the decision to stay open, that everything would flow from that and that I would take responsibility.
I contacted the unnamed person whose name I put on the record earlier and she secured a subvention for them. It was the kind of subvention that is being addressed by this Bill because for some reason, they had not been in receipt of it. Consequently, any old dear who did not have the money was topped up. I then contacted the grand nephew of one of our greatest writers, namely, James Joyce. I will not name the grand nephew because Members are not allowed to do so. However, we are at least allowed to name one of our great writers. He was a financial expert.

Acting Chairman: The Senator may name anyone who is dead.

Mr. Norris: Great. I thank the Acting Chairman. I refer to the grand nephew of James Joyce, who is a financial wizard and does not have an artistic bone in his body. However, he put together a scheme whereby if relatives paid in money - I forget the name of the mechanism - they could get the income tax back.

Ms O'Rourke: Did the Senator's aunt pass away?

Mr. Norris: Eventually, yes. However, she lasted for ten years and lived to be 103.

Ms O'Rourke: Baking every day.

Mr. Norris: The term is covenanting. Between the document we drew up on covenanting and the assistance of the Government, I am pleased to say the establishment has its doors open to this day, which is terrific.

Ms O'Rourke: That is great. Where is it?

Mr. Norris: It is in Harold's Cross. It is also extremely disturbing for elderly people, who are used to a regime, to be moved somewhere else. This is a problem, regardless of whether it is as good.

Mr. Glynn: It confuses them.

Mr. Norris: I accept the Government must regularise the position, particularly after it was discovered that there was an illegality in taking money from people. However, one of my concerns regarding the Bill is that it states that older people with an income of more than €9,000 per year, or savings worth more than €36,000, may be refused subvention. The sum of €9,000 per year is very small. I am unsure whether this is before or after tax. This comes to approximately €800 per month.

Ms O'Rourke: What about their pension? I forgot to ask that.

Mr. Norris: This is not a large sum. Moreover, a subvention is merely a top-up and if these figures are accurate, it seems to be extremely mean-minded.
The question of the home also arises. In a small number of cases, there is a possibility that people might be able to return home after some restorative care. It seems to be unnecessary in every case to sell a modest suburban home. It seems that under some of the Bill's conditions - Age Concern has expressed reservations in this regard - there could be pressure on older people to sell their homes, which would be a pity. In cases in which people who had a house were in a nursing home and died, perhaps there could be some mechanism for making up part of the money subsequently. However, I would leave them with the opportunity to return to the home, if that is at all possible.

Mr. Glynn: That is the Bill's objective.

Mr. Norris: If that is the case, I am all in favour of it.

Ms O'Rourke: Perhaps the Minister of State will respond to this point.

Mr. S. Power: I will.

Mr. Norris: However, the reports-----

Mr. Glynn: Just to say that-----

Acting Chairman: Members are not engaged in a Committee Stage debate.

Mr. Glynn: Yes. However, it is the objective of every hospital to return people to the community.

Mr. Norris: I am delighted by that. However, it does not appear to be the Bill's objective. Perhaps this can be examined.

Acting Chairman: Senator Norris has exceeded his time considerably.

Mr. Norris: Have I?

Ms O'Rourke: He is well worth listening to.

Mr. Norris: Not really.

Acting Chairman: I do not have that discretion.

Mr. Norris: However, the interruptions certainly were most helpful. In fact I would scarcely describe them as interruptions. They were well intentioned additions to my comments from my friends on the Government side of the House, with whom I disagreed only yesterday regarding the Defamation Bill. I am glad that in the spirit of reconciliation and Christmas, all Members are again at one in attempting to protect elderly people among whom, if they are lucky, they will be numbered eventually. As the American gentleman noted, the alternative is considerably less comfortable.

Acting Chairman: I am relieved Senator Norris has not reached that point just yet.

Committee on Foreign Affairs - Debate on Cluster Munitions - 6th December 2006

Committee on Foreign Affairs – Debate on Cluster Munitions – 6th December 2006

Senator Norris: I greatly appreciate the Chairman's courtesy. I welcome Mr. D'Costa. I am very glad I was able to stay for his contribution which was absolutely clear. Cluster munitions are horrible. I am very glad he added in something that was not in the text of his written submission, namely, that 98% of the casualties are civilian. This makes cluster munitions a particularly obscene form of weaponry.
There is another point I would like to make before I must leave - and I intend no discourtesy. I understand there is a strong possibility that investment is made on behalf of the Irish taxpayers in some firms that produce cluster bombs. This is done through organs such as the National Pensions Reserve Fund. I have been raising this in the Seanad. I also had a meeting with the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, who was very positive on the question of ethical investment and divestment from, for example, Sudan. Irish taxpayers' money may be used in this way because of the way in which the remit of the National Pensions Reserve Fund and various other agencies is framed. They may be required to get the highest yield possible and there are no ethical guidelines. The Minister of State indicated that there is a non-binding, exhortative UN framework that it is hoped to abide by but he seemed not to be averse to the introduction of a specific ethical guideline into the remit of the National Pensions Reserve Fund. Has Mr. D'Costa any information on that or would he be prepared to assist us in finding out what the situation is?
These vicious weapons which are not particularly militarily effective and which are directed against the civilian population should be outlawed straight away. There is no moral justification and I very much doubt whether there is even a military justification for them. I would have thought that humanity would have learnt lessons from the tragic lesson of the Vietnam War. The most recent example of the use of cluster munitions was in Lebanon where in the past 72 hours of that tragic, unnecessary and, from the Israelis' point of view, suicidal engagement, a million cluster bombs were left behind. That is a reproach to the conscience of the decent people of Israel, and there are many of them.
I was very pleased that Mr. D'Costa put down a formula of what he would like us to do. I propose to put and amended version on the Order Paper and I hope it can be an all-party motion urging the Government to get involved. I am perfectly certain that our Government and our Minister for Foreign Affairs are as revolted as individual members of both Houses are. Supporting a motion is one practical thing we can do. We can only, however, give a moral lead because we are not a significant military power. Even though we have a strong economy our divestment from some of these companies would be only a pin prick.

However, we may do some good by raising this as an issue. I was not an
uncritical admirer of the late Princess Diana. However, she did two extremely
valuable things; she embraced AIDS patients and stopped them being
untouchable, and just as importantly, she led a campaign against these
vicious and filthy weapons which are a reproach to humanity. I compliment
Mr. D'Costa and Pax Christi on again raising this issue. I hope it will be taken
up by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Perhaps the committee could examine
this resolution and see if there is something in it that we could all agree to
pass.

Order of Business - 7th December 2006

Order of Business - 7th December 2006

Mr. Norris: Many Members on both sides of the House told me they were delighted I said what I did and that they would have liked to have done so but they are terrified of the press. That is what we are heading into.
I call for a debate on landmines perhaps in the context of the Middle East because 1 million landmines were dropped in Lebanon in the past 72 hours. No. 25, motion 28, on the Order Paper in the names of all my colleagues on the Independent benches seeks to outlaw landmines and it is based on a very powerful submission by Mr. Tony D'Costa of Pax Christi to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. I am happy to withdrawn that motion if the Government and the Opposition parties wish to put together a composite one.
My colleague, Senator Mooney, is very interested in this issue and attended the same meeting. I would like the Leader to consider the motion in the name of the Independent Senators to see if it is possible for the Government to put together, and pass, an all-party one. I believe the Government would be sympathetic to this.
There is a further worry that, inadvertently, public moneys may be invested in American companies engaged in manufacturing these obscene instruments of death and misery. They are not even military instruments. Mr. D'Costa told us that 98% of the casualties are civilian. That tells us one simple thing, namely, that they have no military application and that they are instruments of terror and mutilation. After a war is over, unfortunate children pick them up and are mutilated and killed. All parties should stand up against this filthy and barbarous practice.

Defamation Bill 2006 - Second Stage Debate - 6th December 2006

Defamation Bill 2006 – Second Stage – 6th December 2006-12-07

Mr. Norris: I welcome the Minister to the House but I do not really welcome the Bill, although I will probably be a lone voice in the latter respect. As long as I have been a Member of this House, there has been pressure from newspaper proprietors and editors to make life easier for them. I can understand that because they are human beings and have their own interests, but it would be a great pity if we gave in to them. I know it is the Christmas season but this looks very much to me like turkeys queuing up to vote for Christmas.
I am not impressed either by the Bill or the proposal for a press council. The Minister has a reputation in the Lower House of being a rottweiler, and has been described as such. This is not the work of a rottweiler, however; it is much more like the work of a chihuahua. I know the intention is to rebalance towards newspapers so that they can do more investigative journalism. That is the pious aspiration that comes along with it. I am all in favour of investigative journalism and the exposure of hypocrisy and evil, but let us look across the water and see what has happened there since Rupert Murdoch acquired the Sun newspaper. It has been driven by profits and that is what we will get here.
The press council and press ombudsman will be toothless. The proposed press ombudsman does not deserve that title. The Minister knows well that the post will be quite unlike that of any other ombudsman. For example, it will lack all significant powers to compel, produce witnesses or impose financial penalties. In addition, the ombudsman will be appointed by this wonderful new press council, which is not independent. Is that not an irony?
The Minister may take a principled position with regard to whether or not a council of this kind should be independent and whether various groups should be self-regulating. He is entitled to do that and he is a man of intellectual honesty and consistency, but the newspapers are not like that. There is not a newspaper in this country that has not called for independent regulation of every other profession, except themselves. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so I would like the newspaper editors to tell me what is so precious about their little profession. I am a fully paid up member of the National Union of Journalists, although I may not survive its next annual general meeting. As a journalist, I have seen both sides of the libel issue. I will put some of my experiences in this regard on the record in due course.
Under the terms of the Bill, we will have a press council established by the industry. There will be a figleaf comprising five industry representatives and six representing the public interest. The five will include a representative of newspaper owners and editors, while journalists will also be represented, in addition to six people representing the public interest. There will be a majority of one on the amorphous side but, as anybody familiar with juries will know, it is easy to sway the others if one has a block. Therefore, the situation is not as balanced as it seems to be.

We are told that publications which sign up to the code of practice will be

governed by it, but what about the ones who do not sign up? How useful is a

practice that governs only those who sign up to it? Murdoch-style

newspapers are filthy little rags and some of them are printed in this country.

They are not subject to the code of ethics of the National Union of Journalists because their proprietors make damned sure their journalists are not allowed to join the NUJ and their houses are non-union in the manner of Mr. Rupert Murdoch. How will we control the newspaper proprietors with weak and fluffy legislation?
The general secretary of the NUJ is a decent and honourable man who has done Members some service by producing a document which, while it puts the best possible face on the proposed press ombudsman and press council, is none the less weak. It states, for example, that when a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report or picture has been published, it shall be corrected promptly with due promise. That is fine. It also states that while comment, conjecture, rumour and unconfirmed reports shall not be reported as if they were fact, newspapers and periodicals are entitled to advocate strongly their own views on topics. This is also fine. It continues: "In reporting news and information, newspapers and periodicals shall strive at all times for truth and accuracy". There is a great deal of this.
The Press Complaints Commission in Britain is useless. After it was established, The Sun newspaper deliberately and grossly libelled Elton John. It was fined £1 million but did not give a damn because its circulation increased. British newspapers do not give a damn because the Press Complaints Commission is toothless. They invade people's privacy, lay siege to their houses and name and shame them. Perhaps the Minister will remember an example of naming and shaming when a man who shared the same name with a convicted paedophile had his address published and was subsequently killed. This is the kind of extremely dangerous behaviour in which a certain type of newspaper engages.
In 1993, Sir David Calcutt in Britain stated:
The Press Complaints Commission is not .... an effective regulator of the press. It has not been set up in a way, and is not operating a code of conduct, which enables it to command not only press but also public confidence.... It is not the truly independent body that it should be.
This is the type of organisation we will get. The British body even has much stronger elements than the proposed body.
The code of conduct of the National Union of Journalists states:
A journalist has a duty to maintain the highest professional and ethical standards. A journalist must at all times defend the principle of the freedom of the press and other media in relation to the collection of information and the expression of comment and criticism. He-she shall strive to eliminate distortion, news suppression and censorship.
Distortion occurs throughout the press. Last week, Independent Newspapers, on foot of a serious political report from Europe, deliberately distorted and lied about the entire document. It was perfectly clear that rendition aeroplanes had regularly landed at Shannon Airport. The question was not whether they were full of torture victims, yet the headline in one of the Independent Newspapers titles was: "Torture planes did not land at Irish airports". How close is that to the truth?
Let us examine the way the company dealt with the Shell to Sea campaign. It falsified statistics from a commissioned report and personally vilified a Member of the Other House, Deputy Cowley, who was singled out and details of his income printed on the front page. It would have been remarkable had the Deputy been the highest earner in the health system but his earnings were ranked down the table. What relevance is this information? It was published to discredit the Deputy.
Does the Minister remember the way Eamon Dunphy was treated when he left the Irish Independent? One could not pick up a newspaper without reading details of the colour of his hair, how much hair he had and the kind of shoes he wore. Former President, Mary Robinson, appeared in every part of the Irish Independent, from the weather forecast to the social column and fashion reviews. In other words, powerful interests target people they do not like. This behaviour may not be coverable by the legislation but it is the ethos with which we are dealing. I am not saying that these newspapers are not good at times in other respects - the quality is very mixed - but the motivation involved in them is disgusting and contemptible. People are afraid to say this because they know they may well be the next target.
I remember when a colleague of the Government Members, an MEP, won a libel action against a newspaper, which then waited for 18 months before it got him.

Ms O'Meara: The electorate got him if I recall correctly.

Mr. Norris: The electorate is perfectly entitled to get him but one must consider the degree of malice sometimes shown by newspapers.
I am worried that the proposed press council will not be independent. A group that calls for independence for everybody else does not like independence for itself and is governed by weak guidelines. Let us operate a code similar to that applied by the British NUJ whose code of conduct states: "A journalist shall mention a person's age, race, sex, colour, creed, illegitimacy, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation only if this information is strictly relevant." I do not see such a stipulation in the Bill. Some newspapers continually refer to the sexual orientation of individuals.
I am not impressed by the proposed press council or press ombudsman, as they will not be fully independent. I accept, however, that the Minister has appointed good people to both bodies, starting with the former Provost of Trinity College Dublin, Tom Mitchell. Who knows who will be appointed chairman under the next Administration? To answer the Minister's question, Tom Mitchell could tell him that Trinity College has a fully independent regulator, the appeal to the visitor. I am always happy to supply information to address deficiencies in the Minister's knowledge. As I do not often get the opportunity, it is a particular pleasure for me to do so when the occasion arises.
The defence of reasonable publication worries me. Reference was made to a celebrated case in which a jury of the people awarded a significant amount of money. This is not what happened. The newspaper in question returned to the courts for a second cut and continued to defend all the lies being told. We are supposed to be in sackcloth and ashes because the jurors, in their wisdom, tripled the original award. I will not second guess the people.
Qualified privilege will be given a statutory basis in the Bill. An English court held that Albert Reynolds was libelled on this basis and he was awarded a farthing or shilling.

Mr. Dardis: It was a penny.

Mr. Norris: The figure was repeatedly adjusted. Everything was done to humiliate him, after which he was not awarded his costs. I would be very careful in this regard.
It is fair that one cannot libel the dead. We all use this when we tell stories. In one particular story I refer to the late Sir Laurence Olivier. The only reason I name him is that I know he is dead and cannot take a libel case. It is a funny story and as he has been dead for a long time, no one at a dinner party will be overly concerned. We should examine the possibility of introducing a limited period under which a dead person can be libelled. Libel is particularly painful for people in the immediate aftermath of death. Why not provide that the right not to be libelled will not be extinguished for a year after death in the interests of the family of the deceased? Liam Lawlor, who was not, God knows, a saint, comes to mind. He did not deserve the kind of lies which were told about him to the grief of his family. What about the case of a well-known murderer - I will not mention his name - whose son was photographed while cycling through Trinity College where he was studying for a degree? His name and association with the murderer were then published in a newspaper. Was that in the public interest? Will this type of practice be addressed in the legislation?
Let us look at the ethos of newspapers. They do not give a damn about the damage they do. I have consistently raised the point that every single newspaper, including the most reputable in the land, routinely publish the name, address, occupation and photograph of accused persons who may or may not be found guilty. If they are found innocent they have already been very severely punished but no editor has taken up this issue. That is the prevailing ethos in the press.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to address some of the provisions of the Bill in more detail. The Bill provides a curious protection of a judge. It states: "Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), it shall be a defence to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the statement in respect of which the action was brought was .... made by a judge, or other person, performing a judicial function".

The Minister should remove this from the Bill. For what reason should a judge be allowed to defame a citizen in giving a judgment? I refer the Minister to Nell McCafferty's reports from the District Court and the outrageous and disgraceful things the judges got away with saying. Are judges to be allowed under this provision to humiliate with no substance distressed persons appearing in court before them and to be granted an immunity? Why should judges be granted an immunity?
I suggest the Minister consider carefully circumstances in which judges can take libel actions. I have been involved in such circumstances - although not personally - for saying that the licensing situation in Dublin had gone out of control and that every second-hand newsagent's shop was being licensed. I said I did not know who were the judges responsible and whatever kind of lunatics were handing out the licences. The station was sued because of my use of the word "lunatic", which is in common usage in England. Substantial sums of money were gained by that judge, not once, but twice. I am not sure that judges should be protected in this way.
I regard one section of the Bill as appalling and I want the Minister to remove it. I refer to section 18, the defence of honest opinion. Section 18(1) states:
It shall be a defence (to be known, and in this Act referred to, as the "defence of honest opinion") to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that, in the case of a statement consisting of an opinion, the opinion was honestly held.
It seems one can say whatever one likes about a person so long as one can say in court that one thought that was the case and that it was one's opinion. This is ridiculous.
Section 18(2)(a) states:
[A]t the time of the publication of the statement, the defendant believed in the truth of the opinion or, where the defendant is not the author of the opinion, believed that the author believed it to be true,
This is kowtowing to editors.
This Bill is a dreadful day's work. There are a few good points in it. I support a balanced approach and I support investigative journalism but I do not for one minute accept that people in public life should be subject to a lower standard of proof. They should be held to their views if they say one thing while passing laws and their private behaviour goes in another direction. I agree this should be exposed. However, to go after their children by photographing them and listening to their telephone conversations is abhorrent. There is nothing in this Bill that will prevent it because we have given up on privacy. This was supposed to be the balancing act. The newspaper editors would be given this free charter but the private citizens were to be protected by privacy laws and they have now been dropped because we have given in. That is the measure of the fear, not only of the ordinary citizen in this country, but even of the legislators. They are afraid to squeak.

Order of Business - 6th December 2006

Order of Business – 6th December 2006

Mr. Norris: I find myself in the embarrassing situation of agreeing with Senator Mansergh's comments about the rebroadcasting this morning of a budget speech given some years ago by the former Minister, Mr. Ray MacSharry. The speech, in which Mr. MacSharry referred to the difficult days we were experiencing at the time, was stark in the extreme. He said that while there had been decreases in production, productivity, exports, Exchequer income and employment, we should not lose courage because the foundations for future prosperity could be laid if we took some difficult steps. We have to give credit to people on all sides of the House who faced the realities of the time. Mr. MacSharry, among others, helped to lay the foundations for what we have today.

Senators: Hear, hear.

Mr. Norris: I hope the Minister for Finance decides to pay off some more of the national debt in today's budget. It would be wonderful if we could become debt-free in these times of prosperity.
I would like to speak about the extraordinary figures relating to the sentencing of prisoners which have been mentioned by other Senators. I gather the figures can be compared to the equivalent international figures. There is nothing unusual about our figures in that context. The rate of recidivism in Ireland is not greater than that in other countries - in fact, it is slightly less. It is interesting that just 25% of sexual offenders reoffend, as I would have thought the figure would be far higher. It appears the behaviour of such people in certain circumstances is less compulsive than the community believes. I do not agree with the idea of imprisoning people for not paying fines in respect of their television sets. Some of my colleagues have suggested taking some of the meagre social welfare income that such people receive. That is the most revolting suggestion I have heard in this House. I simply cannot believe it. I am sure it was just a slip of the tongue or a mistake.

Ms O'Rourke: No.

Mr. Norris: It would just catapult them back in again. It would be a complete waste of time.
I have just learned to my sorrow that there is no such thing as an original idea. I had written down what I planned to say about the annual cost of €90,000 for the detention of people in ordinary prisons and of €250,000 for the fancy accommodation for the Shinners. One could certainly send people to good schools for that amount of money. I am really being serious when I ask why we should not provide for that. Given that we have provided for affordable housing, should we not require snotty boarding schools to take in a prisoner each?

Mr. Dardis: Some of them are already full of prisoners.

Mr. Norris: It would do them good. It would certainly save the Exchequer money.
I am a little concerned about the question of fluoridation. I have been contacted by people who have far more information on the matter than I have. We have certain medical personnel of various kinds in this House. I have received a press release from the Irish Medical News, stating that parents in Ireland who make up formula with tap water give their children seven times the safe level of fluoride, as agreed by the British Medical Association. The Minister for Health and Children has told the Dáil that if fluoride is to have any ill-effects, a newborn baby weighing 3kg would have to ingest 15mg of fluoride, which would be 176 times more than the safe fluoride level agreed by the British Medical Association. I would like to know who is wrong. Are infants in this country in danger of being poisoned, or is the British Medical Association wrong? It would be useful for Senators to get advice on this matter from the Minister for Health and Children and some of our medical colleagues in this House.

Order of Business - 5th December 2006

Order of Business – 5th December 2006

Mr. Norris: I join with my colleagues in requesting the Minister to come into
the House so that there should be a full debate on the issue raised by Senator
Ormonde and previous speakers. I commend the Senators on both sides of
the House for making this request in a measured and balanced way.
We must remember that people can easily put a foot wrong. The Minister of State made what seems to be a most extraordinary series of charges and we are entitled to investigate what lies behind them.
If, as it appears, one fifth of children are suffering from some kind of psychiatric difficulty, it raises an important question about the nature of our society. Was this always the case or has something changed in that such a significant proportion of children are deemed to be mentally unwell? I would like to know if this is a fact. If so, what kind of illness is involved and what is its source? Does it reflect changes in society? Is it related to the fact that in so many cases both parents have to go out to work? I simply do not know. I am not blaming parents because this is part of the economic reality with which we live. I am sure that cannot be the reason for all such cases but we need to examine what is wrong with society. There certainly seems to be some kind of malaise in it.
Members on both sides of the House have already raised these questions. I have posed questions about autistic children, whose brave and gallant parents care for them, as well as the virtual absence of speech therapists. It takes some time to train such therapists. There is also the question of psychologists and, as Senator O'Toole said, there are 50 to 100 of them waiting for appointments. On the radio today, it was said that a 1% drop in the top rate of tax was a possibility in tomorrow's budget and that it would cost €280 million. That sum would be much better spent by immediately employing trained psychologists.
I also wish to raise a matter which I have consistently raised here. It concerns the rendition flights through Shannon Airport. It is disgraceful that Independent Newspapers once again did not find itself able to tell the truth about this. A headline in the Irish Independent, concerning the report of the European Parliament's committee on this matter, stated "US torture flights never landed at our airports". That is a deliberate and specific lie, because they did land here. We know they did. We have the flight patterns, log data and names of many of the people involved. It has been expertly stated that a number of CIA personnel went through this country on false Irish passports. That certainly is a crime and demands an investigation. I ask the Leader to take up this matter with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and obtain further information on it.
I compliment the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, on a wonderful concert by the cross-Border orchestra in Dublin Castle last week. It was such a hopeful sign that people from both sides of the Border became involved in this event. There were even some Lambeg drums and Uilleann pipes. I have always loved those pipes but I did not know their origins. It was informative to discover that they came here as a result of Presbyterian ministers - who could not afford organs for their churches - importing this adaptation of the Scottish bagpipes. Uilleann pipes are a quintessential Irish instrument but, given their origins, they make a wonderful symbol of the potential for cultural unity that is now within our grasp.