Senator David Norris's Adjourment Debate - Citizenship Applications - 26th April 2007

Senator David Norris’s Adjournment Debate - Citizenship Applications – 26th April 2007

Mr. Norris: This is a serious matter and I am glad that the Minister of State who heard my opinions on the Criminal Justice Bill is here because I made the point that this is all of a piece with the situation wherein a citizen of this country, presumed innocent, can be brought before a court and, effectively, jailed for seven days on the word of a garda who is immune from cross-examination and does not have to reveal his or her reasons.
I am involved in a case concerning a young man who is here in the House. I wish the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, was here so I could point out that this is the person of whom he has such an extraordinary and irrational fear. The man is a friend of mine and my partner, Tevfik. My attention was brought to the fact that a difficulty had ensued when he applied for naturalisation. If the Minister's response is not completely favourable, I propose to pursue this matter through the courts because an extraordinarily dangerous precedent has been set.
The young man in question is a respectable professional from Algeria in north Africa. He is an architect by profession and his brother, his brother's wife and her family live here. Having been accepted as an asylum seeker, he has been legitimately in the country as a refugee for a considerable number of years. After the statutory period of years elapsed, he applied for naturalisation and a decision was made by an assistant principal in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to refuse the application. In the documentation sent to him he was informed he could appeal the decision and when considering making a re-application he should "give due regard to the reasons for refusal given in the attached submission". The document was signed by Joan Brown from the citizenship section. In other words, he could appeal the decision but ought to include the reasons for the refusal. Naturally, he requested details of the reasons for the refusal but, astonishingly, his request was refused. He pursued the matter under the Freedom of Information Act and was again refused.
I wonder what country we are living in. This is Kafkaesque. If a person who is resident of the country is such a danger, why was it considered appropriate that he be given refugee status? I have pursued the cavalier refusal to grant his application as much as I could and was more or less warned off the case. It was indicated to me that I did not want to know but I do want to know, as does the gentleman in question. I have asked him at every stage of this process whether there is any matter, including of a criminal nature, in his background of which he is ashamed or if he has any links to so-called Islamic terrorist groups. He has assured me again and again that this is not the case. His only crime that I can determine is that he is from a Muslim background. He has told me he wants to know of what he is accused in order that he can defend his good name and reputation. I wonder what has been put into the system and what is the reason for the refusal of the citizenship application.
This case is reminiscent of a series of other cases dating back to the Dreyfus case and constitutes a clear breach of natural justice. I assume there has been a mistake but it is not one for which the gentleman in question should pay. If the Minister can produce a scrap of evidence, I demand he place it before the House. My informant, the person in question, has indicated to me that he is happy to answer any questions. Let us get to the bottom of this case and ascertain what black mark there is against him. Let us see if he can explain it because I believe he can. If he cannot do so, that is a different matter.
I believe a serious, fundamental matter of human rights is once again being broached today. I seriously distrust the professionalism of those engaged in the relevant section of the Department. I receive complaint after complaint about it and it is simply not good enough. I await with interest the Minister of State's response. I shall, with my informant's consent and encouragement, take this matter further if it is not satisfactorily resolved today.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. T. O'Malley): The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, as amended, provides that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform may, in his or her absolute discretion, grant an application for a certificate of naturalisation provided certain statutory conditions are fulfilled. These conditions are that the applicant must be of full age, or by way of exception, be a minor born in the State; be of good character; have had a period of one year's continuous residency in the State immediately before the date of the application and, during the eight years immediately preceding that period, have had a total residence in the State amounting to four years; intend in good faith to continue to reside in the State after naturalisation; and have made a declaration in the prescribed manner of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State either before a judge of the District Court in open court or in such a manner as the Minister, for special reasons, allows.
In the context of naturalisation, certain periods of residence in the State are excluded. These include periods of residence in respect of which an applicant does not have permission to remain in the State, periods granted for the purposes of study and periods granted for the purposes of seeking recognition as a refugee within the meaning of the Refugee Act 1996.
The granting of Irish citizenship through naturalisation is an honour. Applications must be processed in a manner which preserves the necessary checks and balances to ensure citizenship is not undervalued and is given only to persons who are suitably qualified. Upon receipt, each application is examined to determine if the statutory application is completed fully. It should be noted that approximately one third of all applications for naturalisation received are not completed correctly, necessitating the forms and accompanying documentation being returned to the applicant with an explanation of the problem involved. Valid applications are examined to determine if the applicant meets the statutory residency criteria set out in the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, as amended. Passports and other documentation are examined in detail and inquiries with the Garda National Immigration Bureau may also be necessary.
Since this procedure was introduced on 1 April 2005, more than 1,500 applicants who applied since that date have been found to have insufficient residency in the State for the purposes of naturalisation. All such applicants are informed of any shortfall in their residency and will be able to re-apply when they have the required residency.
The next stage of the process involves assessing an applicant's financial status in respect of his or her ability to support himself or herself in the State. Inquiries with the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social and Family Affairs may be necessary in this regard. At the same time, inquiries are also made with the Garda Síochána to ascertain if the applicant can be deemed to be of good character. There may also be circumstances in individual cases which require a greater level of investigation than other cases.
Once all inquiries are completed, the file is referred to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for a decision. These procedures have been developed and refined over a number of years and the Tánaiste is satisfied they are necessary to maintain the integrity of the naturalisation process. The Senator will appreciate that these processes can, by their nature, take quite some time to complete.
The person referred to in the Senator's question arrived in the State on 27 July 2001. On 30 July 2001 he applied for asylum. His application was refused by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner on 12 April 2002. On appeal, this decision was set aside by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the person in question was declared a refugee under section 17 of the Refugee Act 1996, as amended, on 19 February 2003. On 28 October 2004, he made an application for the granting of a certificate of naturalisation. This application was considered under the provisions of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Acts 1956 and 1986 and the Minister decided on 8 March 2006 not to grant naturalisation. A copy of the submission prepared by officials in the Department at the time was forwarded to the applicant for his information.
In reaching his decision the Minister exercised the absolute discretion as provided by the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Acts. While the said Acts do not provide for a formal process of appeal of his decision to refuse naturalisation, the Minister is obliged to make the reasons for his decision available to the applicant under the provisions of section 18 of the Freedom of Information Act 1997. The Minister understands the applicant submitted a request under the Act for records held by his Department in this matter and a decision on that request was communicated to him on 15 May 2006. If, following an examination of the copy of his or her case file, an applicant considers the Minister's decision has been based on incorrect or incomplete information, it is open to him or her to seek a review of that decision.
The applicant was also informed that he may re-apply for the grant of a certificate of naturalisation at any time and the Minister understands a second application was lodged in the citizenship section of his Department on 23 March 2006. That section is processing applications made in the latter half of 2004. Applications are dealt with in chronological order as this is deemed fairest to all applicants and the individual in question might therefore expect to receive a decision in his case in the latter half of next year.

Mr. Norris: I thank the Minister of State for his reply, the last paragraph of which was helpful. The antepenultimate paragraph of the reply states, "A copy of the submission prepared by officials of the Department at the time was forwarded to the applicant for his information." I have just confirmed with the person involved, who is present in the Visitor's Gallery, that it was not forwarded to him.
The Minister of State has not addressed the subject of the matter, which was the need for the Minister to provide the information, which he has not done. There has been some back-tracking. The Minister of State said, "If ... an applicant considers the Minister's decision has been based on incorrect or incomplete information, it is open to him or her to seek a review of that decision." We are seeking such a review.
The Minister of State should take back to the persons responsible in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform that it is not good enough in a 21st century European democracy to behave in this Kafkaesque way. The gentleman in the Visitor's Gallery demands to know who put a black mark against him and what is that black mark. I want the officials in the Department to know I will pursue this matter to the bitter end. Woe for them if they have behaved wrongly because, if I cannot get an answer in the Oireachtas, I will make sure in the courts of this land that I get an answer in justice and decency for all the people in this country.

Criminal Justice Bill 2007 - Second Stage Debate - 26th April 2007

Criminal Justice Bill 2007 – Second Stage Debate – 26th April 2007

Mr. Norris: I deplore this legislation and the absence of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who has not seen fit to show his face in the House. I am not surprised; perhaps he is ashamed. This is a dreadful day for the Oireachtas. It is a complete abrogation of democratic responsibility. The Seanad is being treated with contempt. Our principal responsibility is to review and refine legislation and put down amendments but it is obvious no amendments will be accepted. Once again, the Government is undermining the democratic function of Seanad Éireann. That is a disgrace.
This is rushed legislation and its aim is unclear. It was stated it is intended to address the problem of gangland violence but it will not do that.
There are ways to approach it but this is not one of them.
An analogy is drawn with similar measures introduced in Britain but that has been done in the context of very intensive debate and with proper safeguards, which are absent from this Bill.
The Bill, as originally put before the other House a few weeks ago, drew a chorus of criticism from the entire legal profession. Today in The Irish Times there is a letter signed by a column of practising barristers which draws attention to the dangers implicit in this measure, for example, detention of people in police stations in the light of the Morris tribunal. That is what our experience has been, yet there is no clear reference to that or belief that the matters exposed by the Morris tribunal have been properly addressed in the issue.
There is also an article by Brendan Grehan, Senior Counsel. He makes the point that barristers rarely bellyache about the introduction of new legislation because it means more jobs for them and more loot in their pockets but, unusually on this occasion, a very large number of barristers have objected. He mentions the fact that some improvements were made to the Bill in the Dáil but none will be made in this House. That is a shame. He also points out, as I have already indicated, that the English model is not being completely followed. He states:
Curtailing the right to silence has been defended by the Minister by reference to similar changes introduced to the law in England in recent times. However, in his proposals he has failed to introduce the strong protections of the right to legal advice which have been incorporated into the English measure.
He goes on to state, what I believe, that the justification of it being an emergency response to the gangland slayings, which we all deplore, raises other questions. If it is an emergency response, why is there not provision in the legislation for a review by the Oireachtas? Why does this emergency legislation last for one year and then to be reviewed by the Oireachtas? That is very unsatisfactory.
I would like to turn to some other questions of principle. Under the Constitution judges are appointed to administer justice. They are not supposed to be a rubber stamp but this Bill will have that effect, at least to a certain extent, for example when they are asked to extend detention by a period of five days. This is done on the opinion of somebody. An opinion is given evidential status. That is very worrying. There are also situations where, for example, the opinion of a garda cannot be properly tested. It becomes evidence, therefore, without being properly tested.
I turn to two briefing documents by which I have been impressed. The first one is from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties which expressed considerable concern about the way the Bill is supposed to attack gangland crime and points out that a series of eminent barristers, including nine senior counsel and the law society as a group have called for the adoption of the Bill to be postponed until it can be fully debated. In other words, it is calling for the Bill to be postponed. I join that call. In the dying days of this Parliament and in the run-up to an election, this complicated material is being rushed through without any proper scope for full examination.
I can point again to the situation that arose with regard to the statutory rape case. Legislation was rushed through the Houses. The Minister said he did not want to rush it through but the Joe Duffy programme essentially forced him to do it, and he regretted it. He had cause to regret it subsequently.
I will vote against this Bill because it is bad legislation. It does not address the principle. The only way to do that is to examine the drugs problem. There is only one way to resolve that and it is not with the so-called war on drugs. It is to legalise, monitor and quality control drugs. I recognise this is a very serious problem and it must be done internationally. That is the only way. I can guarantee this Minister, the other Ministers in that Department and everybody else that we will be back here in a year's time and the situation will not have improved one iota but people's civil rights will have been eroded in a serious way.
Crime prevention orders are rather like the anti-social behaviour orders. They have the same effect, that is, people can be found guilty of an offence and jailed for conduct which is itself not a criminal matter. That is very worrying. Again, we are copying the United Kingdom in that regard but this whole area has been extensively debated in both Houses of Parliament, unlike the situation here.
On the seven days Garda custody, the ICCL's position is that it be withdrawn pending further debate. It quotes the Council of Europe's committee on the prevention of torture which states:
... seven days in police custody without a charge is a long period of time. ... prolonged periods of detention of criminal suspects on police premises can lead to high-risk situations.
We had the Dean Lyons case, the whole episode of the Morris tribunal and so on and, as a result, it is recommending that this also be withdrawn.
Another point that worries me is the cavalier attitude of the Minister towards the status of commissions, review groups and reports. He quotes, for example, the balance in the criminal law review group and an interim report on the right to silence but the head of that group, who I believe is a member of his party, and a very distinguished lawyer, Gerry Hogan, has made it clear that it is an interim report and its conclusions are not definitive. Again, the Minister is rushing ahead even of his own colleagues. That is very worrying, particularly coming from a man who has a fine legal brain and is a senior politician.
I have many concerns that are shared by the ICCL. They are also shared by the Irish Human Rights Commission, chaired by a former leader of the Opposition in this House. In the background to this document, in rather coy terms, it expresses its concerns. It states, "The IHRC considers the limited time-frame within which the Criminal Justice Bill 2007 is being brought forward to be unfortunate". That is very diplomatic language but it is clear it is very dissatisfied. There is a certain ring to the word "unfortunate". It further states, "Desire to change the law should be balanced by the need to discuss, analyse and reflect on provisions which involve a significant restriction of long established rights". That is what we are doing - the right to silence. It also indicates that it is having great difficulty in responding, due to the shortage of time, and that the bail law in particular should be reviewed with considerable care.
The right to silence is one of the fundamental aspects of our law. The IHRC indicates that, under sections 26, 27 and 28 of the Bill, circumstances in which inferences may be drawn must clearly call for an explanation from the accused. Grehan said in his article that this is a fundamental safeguard but it should be strengthened in the Bill. The IHRC's belief and mine is that inferences should be drawn only where the accused failed to give an account or mention a fact which he or she could reasonably have been expected to mention in the circumstances at the time when he or she was being questioned.
It stresses a point made in the article I quoted from The Irish Times that although there is a parallel here with an English situation, and human rights have been eroded under Mr. Blair in Britain for some time, nevertheless, they at least provide for the availability of strong pre-trial legal advice which is not done here. The Human Rights Commission also believes that the presence of a legal adviser should be provided throughout the interrogation.
There is also the matter of the seven days detention. In 1984, when a similar Bill was introduced extending the powers of detention to 12 hours there was practically a riot in both Houses.
It is now proposed to be at seven days and this is apparently being meekly accepted. That is a very serious curtailment.
Let us remember that people are innocent until proven guilty. There should be a sliding scale in many of these areas of legislation. None of these draconian provisions should come into operation unless, for example, certain criteria are met, such as a previous conviction. However, this could all come into operation in respect of somebody who has simply been accused of a crime. Again, I point to the McBrearty case. This case and the Morris tribunal are our track record, yet these provisions will give evidential standing to the opinion of a senior police officer.
Tagging might have certain attractions, for example, in the case of a serious child molester. I understand that very well. However, it relates to people on bail who have not been convicted of anything. This is a group of people who are considered to be innocent until proven guilty. In this situation, it is appropriate that this should only come into operation if the person has already been convicted of a crime. The basic concern here is, or should be, people who have a record of committing crime while on bail.
I am not sure that tagging somebody electronically when he or she has never been convicted of a crime and is presumed innocent is constitutional. I am also unsure that it is in accordance with the provisions for the right to privacy and bodily integrity in the European Convention on Human Rights because a chip must be inserted. We should think about that. I wonder if anybody in this House has been thinking about it because things are very quiescent around here. This is somebody who is innocent and will have a quasi-surgical procedure performed upon him or her before he or she is convicted of anything. I wonder where we are going with all this.
I will return to the right to silence and examine what the Irish Human Rights Commission, IHRC, has to say about it. The commission makes it clear that the right to silence is one of the fundamental elements of our justice system. It states:
In 1935, Lord Slankey in the House of Lords described the presumption of innocence or the burden on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused as a golden thread that runs through the web of English criminal law (and thus the common law). The Irish courts have given them constitutional status by stating they are essential components of the right to a trial "in due course of law".

Acting Chairman (Mr. Moylan): The Senator has one minute left.

Mr. Norris: The European Court of Human Rights has stated that under Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, "the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself, are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6". There is much to be worried about.
I have not gone into all the technical details because there has not been time to do so. There has not been time to study the Bill properly and to make the kind of interventions I would like to make. There is enough here to indicate the very serious concerns people have.
I am not on the side of criminals. I am on the side of victims and see nothing here for them. I simply see a desperate election shot by a Minister who is concerned about the fate of the Government.
I wish to make one final point because this is already in operation. I am raising a matter on the Adjournment about which I am very angry. It concerns a perfectly decent young man from a north African country whose brother lives here. Both the young man and his brother are architects. Their family is here and he has been accepted as a refugee. He applied for naturalisation, was denied it and told he could appeal it if he gave the grounds for the denial. He was refused the grounds for denial. This is Kafka. This is the world of Joseph Stalin and the Gulag. It is crazy stuff. Yet this is what is contained in this Bill.
In a recent article the former Attorney General, John Rogers, states:
Reliance on opinion evidence in such an application gives rise to the question of how gardaí have arrived at such opinion, and inevitably this will lead to an answer wherein gardaí will say they are relying on intelligence in respect of a source for which they must claim privilege.
In other words, "We won't tell you". One is not given the right to defend one's good name. That is crucial. The article goes on to state, "so the judge will be left to rely on an opinion, the validity of which the judge cannot test or examine in any meaningful way".
This Bill is a disgrace although it may do some good things. The way in which it has been rail-roaded through this Parliament is also a disgrace. I will call for a vote on it and will vote against it.

Motion on Risk Equalisation - 26th April 2007

Motion on Risk Equalisation – 26th April 2007

Mr. Norris: I also welcome the Minister. She is a doughty fighter. She took on a very difficult job. I am not sure it was not a kamikaze mission but she did it honourably. Although I will support these measures, I do so faute de mieux.
This is a disgusting debate and I am a little shocked that not one contributor so far has mentioned the patients. We have heard about the market, entering the field and the functioning of hospitals but we have not heard a word about the patients. That is what interests me. In a three page, double spaced speech the Minister mentioned the word "market" eight times, "competition" and all that sort of rubbish.
I am glad Senator Ryan raised the question of competition. I have been hammering on about that for the past year and I am getting increasingly sick of competition being made a little tin god and the automatic assumption that it delivers for the consumer. It is clear that it does not always deliver. It is clear from what happened with the groceries order.
I ran the Hirschfeld Community Centre. I was the only person who put my own money into it but then a couple of fly-by-nights opened up. They have now become extremely wealthy people but they did not serve the community very well. They put us to the pin of our collar and then buggered off whenever it suited them, not having paid their tax bills, and we were left in a situation where we did not have the resources to put into the community that we otherwise would have had. I start, therefore, from a patient focused point of view and I am not impressed by the market. It is essential that every citizen of this State have access to health care and it is an obscenity that they do not. That is the result of the Minister's market and the sooner we stop this nonsense, the better.
I realise the Minister has a very busy life but perhaps she saw one or two of the "Prime Time" programmes, one of which concerned a woman in County Kilkenny who did not join the VHI, partly because of principle and partly for penury reasons. She believed in a State system. She got a cancer test but the results were delayed. It took six months to get the results, by which time the cancer was untreatable. That woman was effectively sentenced to death by the market that all Members praise. That is revolting. Why should a citizen be sentenced to death because of poverty? The State already has some responsibility for the poverty in which these people live but to deny them treatment is wrong, and it goes on and on.
Another programme concerned a very decent, hard working doctor who ran a clinic in Naas, County Kildare. He had the same story to tell. A patient of his had died because she was in the public service, not in the VHI. I would like the VHI to come in fully under Government and become a real national institution strongly supported by the State. Health care should be nationalised. I am not in favour of the market. It is disgusting that people talk about markets when we are talking about people's health and the right to life. We should ensure we provide adequate health care for every citizen of this State and we are not doing it. We should fully invest in the VHI. There will be flabbiness, as Senator Hayes mentioned, but that is the case in the private system as well. A fully capitalised, funded and supported health service for all that delivers to the people is what I want.
I support this measure because it provides risk equalisation. The Minister was courageous in fighting this battle, and more power to her, but she is fighting it in the wrong context. The market may be all right for groceries, sweets and so on, although I am not sure that is the case, or for betting and gambling, but people's health is the fundamental concern.
Let us not forget the way BUPA behaved. It scarpered but the Minister dealt with that well. She pointed out that in similar circumstances in Australia - I heard it on the radio - it managed to make a profit but it was not big enough. That is the problem. It is too greedy. I want a proper national health service that delivers for all our citizens.
I support the motion faute de mieux. I hope the Minister and I are both re-elected and that we can go hammer and tongs on this issue because it is ideological. The Minister is a voter and I might alienate her in my constituency but I do not give a damn because I feel strongly on this issue. I hope we will have an opportunity to have it out again and again.

Order of Business - 26th April 2007

Order of Busines – 26th April 2007
Mr. Norris: I agree with Senators Scanlon and Brian Hayes. I raised this issue some six weeks ago after it was brought to my attention by people in St. Raphael's. I am glad Senator Brian Hayes raised it so trenchantly today. It is one of the meanest and most discussing impositions on a vulnerable section of the community.
At the time I raised it, the Leader gave an undertaking to bring it to the attention of the Minister. Now that Members on all sides have reinforced its pertinence, I hope she will do so. When I initially spoke on this issue, it was simply a question of imposing this extra charge. The additional step to which Senator Brian Hayes refers - the sending of threatening letters demanding arrears - had not yet been taken. This is entirely unacceptable. I am sure the Leader, who is a caring person, will bring this to the attention of the Minister.
I am afraid the Leader will be busy if she does everything I ask today. Will she raise with the Minister for Foreign Affairs the release on bail by the United States Government of a most notorious criminal, Luis Posada Carriles? This is a man who orchestrated and was the prime mover in the bombing of a civilian aircraft in the 1970s in which 73 people were killed. He has acknowledged it openly. He was also involved in the bombing of a Havana hotel in which an Italian citizen - an EU citizen - was killed, as well as numerous other crimes. It seems he is being released to ensure he keeps his mouth shut about his connections with the CIA. A strong protest should be made about this in view of our status as a state friendly to Cuba, with whom we exchange ambassadors. Moreover, we are always listening to guff from the United States about the war on terrorism. In this case, however, the authorities of that country are releasing terrorists in their own jurisdiction because it suits them to do so.
This House has a good record of seeking to protect the vulnerable, including those with disabilities. It is a horrible fact that the number of wheelchair-accessible taxis in this city, and possibly elsewhere in the State, is dropping steadily. In Dublin, there has been a reduction of 75% in the number of these vehicles. Drivers are handing back their plates because of the considerable additional expense in acquiring accessible taxis. The taxi regulator has written to various Ministers but the letters have not been answered. This puts in perspective our vaunted concern for people with disabilities.
The Broadcasting Complaints Commission has upheld a ruling against the European Commission Representation in Ireland in respect of a series of advertisements that included a strong political message plugging the EU. I am all in favour of the Union but it is useful that this complaint was upheld. Otherwise, if that breach were allowed to continue in the context of a referendum on European matters, for example, it is possible that the office could use substantial funding to influence the context of the debate. That would not be appropriate.

I congratulate the National Platform, Mr. Anthony Coughlan, and other individuals such as Patricia McKenna who went to battle on these issues. They won this issue.

An Cathaoirleach: I hope the Senator's list is not too wide.

Mr. Norris: I apologise, a Chathaoirleach, this is the end. It is an important point that it was left to individuals. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission took an action against Trócaire at the beginning of Lent. I congratulate the individuals and organisations that acted so successfully in this instance.

Expressions of Sympathy on the Death of Senator Kate Walsh - 25th April 2007

Expressions of Sympathy on the Death of Senator Kate Walsh – 25th April 07
Mr. Norris: I have never been terribly enthusiastic about the paying of formal tributes as they are sometimes to people none of us in this House knows. This, however, is a very different occasion, as well as a very sad one. It is marked out as different by the fact none of the words uttered today is purely ceremonial or learnt by rote. Every single word is deeply felt and part of a genuine tribute to a remarkable woman.
Kate Walsh was a very decent woman with a mischievous twinkle in her eye which I always enjoyed. I also liked the fact that her roots, like my own, were in the county of Laois. The name of the last speaker, Senator Kieran Phelan, is one of the great names of County Laois, being one of the important septs of that beautiful county. I found Senator Walsh a very pleasant and professional colleague.
I met her frequently over the years in Celbridge, her home territory, always at charitable events. Groups such as St. Gabriel's have lost a stout and valiant champion. They will miss her, especially in the current controversy surrounding the distraining of grants from the mentally handicapped in residential care because she would have been formidable on that issue.
I was very shocked to hear of her death, though it was obvious she suffered from poor health from time to time, which she faced with great courage.

I heard of her death yesterday. I was having lunch with another good friend of mine, namely, the last surviving nephew of James Joyce and his wife, who live in Celbridge. They were greatly shocked to hear of the news and they both said she would be a great loss. She was an extraordinarily generous woman. While others have chosen different words to describe the late Kate Walsh, I would use and endorse the word, "generous". She was generous with her money and in particular with her commitment and the time she gave to voluntary causes. I also wish to extend my deepest sympathy to her family, friends and party.

Order of Business - 5th April 2007

Mr. Norris: As always I listened with interest
and respect to my colleague, citizen Mansergh.
He is perfectly right that historical files are never
destroyed. It would be pretty difficult to destroy
them since they have all been tossed into a bonfire
or a skip or have been lost. That subject
should be addressed, namely, the extraordinary
inefficiency in the management of archiving.
Within a couple of months, the Garda managed
to get rid of fingerprints, photographs of fingerprints
and photographs of suspects supplied by
the RUC. It was an astonishing performance. We
should criticise the Garda and I make no bones
about so doing. That is a very minimal level of
management and it has nothing whatever to do
with DNA or scientific developments.
The most crucial elements of the investigation
were dumped and within such a short time of the
then Taoiseach, Mr. Liam Cosgrave, assuring the
public that no stone would be left unturned and
that the people who perpetrated this monstrous
act would be brought to justice. Within a couple
of months, everything was thrown on a bonfire
somewhere. That is not acceptable now, nor was
it at that time. We are not talking about the dark
ages. There is a real question of very poor management
of archive material and the public, and
certainly the relatives, deserve to be reassured
about that.
I am sure many people, in addition to myself,
heard Vincent Browne’s radio programme last
night on which a very dignified and composed
woman spoke. She gave a clear, factual and
unemotional account of what happened to her.
At first she thought she had been struck by lightning.
I had no idea Vincent Browne, who I sometimes
criticise, played such a role. He displayed
great courage and initiative in trying to go to the
assistance of members of the public given the
appalling things he confronted. He said he tried
to pick up a woman, but she disintegrated. What
a horrible thing to deliberately do to another
human being. We are entitled to look into this
matter. I do not accept we are at the end of it yet.
There has been a lack of co-operation in certain
instances from the British Government.
In addition to the missing files, there is a missing
chapter in the report because for technical,
legal reasons, which have been explained to the
Taoiseach, a particular line of inquiry about
somebody in regard to whom information was
made available to the Garda could not be pursued.
When that person was called to the inquest,
he got legal advice to stop his appearance. There
are many unanswered questions.
Will the Leader ask the Government why we
have been strongly criticised by the OECD for
not fighting corruption? We have apparently
signed up to the United Nations Convention
Against Corruption but the proper implementation
of this convention relies upon the generation
of domestic legislation and we have not
done this. There are situations where companies
here could bribe figures in other parts of the
world. I would like to think that we would try to
establish good standards.
At the instigation of Pax Christi which is a very
admirable organisation, I submitted an item on
the Order Paper on the topic of cluster bombs. I
will end on a good note by informing the House
that the British Government last week introduced
legislation for a complete ban on the use of cluster
bombs, these filthy things which kill so many
children. The British Government has committed
itself to destroy the stockpiles of this material,
which is to be welcomed. I think further action is
required but this is a good day’s work on the part
of the British Government.
1977 Order of 5 April 2007. Business 1978
Mr. Leyden: Will the Leader consider resuming
the debate on regional transport policy which
would include discussion regarding the magnificent
contract signing yesterday with two Spanish
companies and an Irish company for \605 million
for the N6 from Ballinasloe to Galway city, which
is 57.6 km.
Ms O’Rourke: It will have to come to us first.
Mr. Leyden: To anticipate the Leader’s
response——
Mr. B. Hayes: How much did the magnificent
ceremony cost?
Mr. Dardis: Are they working from the other
end?
Mr. Leyden: ——it is vital that we do not leave
out the section from Athlone to Ballinasloe
because there is no point having the road completed
on the Galway and Dublin sides but leave
out the patch of County Roscommon——
Mr. Norris: It will not take long to do.
Mr. Leyden: ——which is not yet going ahead.
We should push for that to be completed by 2010.
It is a great day for the BMW region and a great
day for the west that a motorway will be built
from Galway to Dublin. I compliment the
Government on this marvellous achievement.
Mr. B. Hayes: Whenever it happens.
Mr. Leyden: It is not every day a great honour
is bestowed on one’s own county. The greatest
honour has been bestowed on County
Roscommon by the appointment of Lieutenant-
General Dermot Earley as chief of staff of the
Defence Forces from 28 June.
Senators: Hear, hear.
An Cathaoirleach: This has been noted. The
Senator knows that this is not relevant to the
Order of Business and he should not use the
Order of Business——
Mr. Leyden: It is relevant to County
Roscommon.
An Cathaoirleach: County Roscommon is only
relevant to the Order of Business when it is on
the Order of Business. It is not correct procedure
for the Senator to take such an opportunity.
Mr. Leyden: It will not arise again for a number
of years.
An Cathaoirleach: I call Senator Quinn.
Mr. Norris: He has spoken already.
An Cathaoirleach: I apologise, I call Senator
Browne.
Mr. Browne: I wish I had his money as well. I
ask the Leader to speak to the Minister for the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government to
consider an information campaign aimed at firsttime
voters such as 18 year olds in secondary
schools or in their first college year and the many
new citizens who are entitled to vote. Our system
of voting is quite complex. People probably have
a vague idea of what it involves. Over the next
few weeks, we will all hear phrases such as, “ I
won’t forget you”, and, “I’ll give you a vote”. Of
course we all want to hear the famous phrase,
“I’ll give you my No. 1”. However, we need to
explain to the public the difference between giving
a No. 1 or a No. 2 to a candidate and the
system of elimination.

Medical Practitioners Bill 2007 - Second Stage Debate - 3rd April 2007

Medical Practitioners Bill 2007 – Second Stage Debate – 3rd April 2007
Mr. Norris: I thank Senator Tuffy for making this time available to me. I have an interest in the Bill for a number of reasons. As a matter of principle, I have always supported independent regulation for professions, including the news media and newspapers in particular, which lash out and ask others to be regulated independently, but are not keen on it for themselves.
While I support independence and it is clear that the medical council as constituted is a self-regulating body, the Minister's proposal is a ministerial takeover. That is worrying, particularly in light of this important legislation being railroaded through the House at the last minute. There is not the slightest chance of amendments from this House being accepted. It is an abrogation of our role, as the Seanad is supposed to be a refining and amending Chamber. Second Stage is to be concluded today while Committee Stage is scheduled for tomorrow and Report and Final Stages for Thursday. That schedule does not leave much time and there will be no amendments.
I will examine the situation and express my concern about the ministerial takeover of the medical council, which reflects the concerns of many people in the medical profession. The first question we must ask is what is the medical council for. It can be answered simply, namely, to ensure the quality of undergraduate and postgraduate medical education, the registration and disciplining of doctors and guidance on professional standards. Under the Bill, the Minister is taking unto herself powers to direct the council on matters of education and policy. She is also giving herself powers to appoint and direct - this is an important issue - the majority of the council and to remove appointees who fail to meet her approval. These provisions make the council amenable to political interference.

I regard the current Minister as somebody of high ethical standards who would be very unlikely to try to interfere politically. This legislation is opening the door to such interference, however, which is very dangerous.
The Bill basically proposes to remove the autonomy of the Medical Council and the individual doctor. It will damage the ability of the council and of doctors to act as advocates for patients, in circumstances in which such advocacy is in conflict with the Minister's own ends. That is the problem. Like the Medical Council, doctors should be politically independent and should represent the interests of patients. After this legislation has been passed, it will be possible for politicians and their advisers to devise and construct health policy without having to tolerate the nuisance that might be presented by any serious appraisal of it by health professionals.
I would like to read from a statement on the Bill that has been published on its website by the Medical Council, which has to be taken reasonably seriously in this regard:
The Bill as currently worded may end elements of the Medical Council's independence. As worded, it will allow a future Minister for Health to block Council activities that could be in the interests of patients (but) might give discomfort to officials at a local or national level.
In other words, it is possible that professionals - people with expert involvement, understanding and knowledge of this area - will be muzzled in the interests of political convenience. I also refer to a recent editorial in Forum, the journal of the Irish College of General Practitioners, which is a serious and responsible body. The college represents local doctors who meet the public all the time when they are contacted by those who are sick or in distress. The editorial stated:
The unanimous warning from the profession is that the section on ministerial directions to Council heralds the holding of draconian power by future ministers to dictate policy to the Council. It is the view of the ICGP and the other training bodies as well as the IMO that this effectively abolishes self-regulation and the independence of the Council from political interference. This is deemed (to) be a serious step in the wrong direction for the protection of patients.
It is clear that similar concerns are outlined on the Medical Council's website and in an editorial in Forum which speaks on behalf of general practitioners.
It has been indicated to me that the Medical Council has previously lobbied the Minister actively to give it greater powers so it can regulate more effectively. The council felt that the tools with which it was provided were inadequate for the job. The Medical Practitioners Bill 2007 does not provide for such additional powers, however. It allows the Minister to assign functions to the council relating to education, training and the practice of medicine, as I have already said. The Minister is being given powers that might make it difficult for the Medical Council to be critical of the Government's health care policy, or its funding of medical education. An attempt is being made to muzzle what should be a strong professional voice on behalf of patients. There is a danger that State intrusion in the doctor-patient relationship might interfere with the duty of doctors to act as advocates on behalf of their patients. It is obvious that there will always be tension between the State and individual citizens in the provision of health care.
The Department and the Minister are in an unenviable position. I understand they might feel angst in having to allocate resources to one group of patients rather than another. They might not appreciate the criticism they are getting from certain voices. People such as me have been demanding the provision of further services for people with cystic fibrosis. It is scandalous that the life expectancy of people in Northern Ireland with cystic fibrosis is ten years more than that of their counterparts on this side of the Border. It is scandalous that the resources made available there are not provided here. I understand the Department of Health and Children has some difficulties in making resources available. It is terribly important that people with cystic fibrosis should be represented not only by people like me who are briefed by groups which are concerned about these matters but also by people within the medical profession who push the interests of their patients. I accept that there is tension in this respect, but it is healthy and democratic. It underlines the principle that the doctor works for the patient rather than for the health service, the Department or the Minister for Health and Children.
Some really tragic stories were told as part of a recent series of programmes on RTE television. We learned about some wonderful doctors who engage in passionate advocacy on behalf of their patients. We were told about a woman with no private health insurance who did not get treatment in time because she had to wait six months for her smear test to come back. It is shocking that a woman in a country with substantial resources was sentenced to death, in effect, for the crime of being poor. I do not believe that such criticism will be evident if the Medical Council comprises a row of Government appointees. I have consistently opposed the practice of jamming all kinds of boards with political appointees because it is wrong. There have been arguments in the past about the process whereby members of local authorities are appointed to the boards of third level institutions. When there was a big row about this sort of thing during the debate on the Trinity College Bill, we managed to confine the number of appointees to one. That person has been all right so far, as far as I know. Politicians are notoriously susceptible to the creeping disease of thinking they will be all right if they get one of their own boys on these boards. Such an approach is not in the best interests of the medical profession.
If the Medical Council is to be truly independent and to fulfil its duty to protect the public, it must be free of the Government's control and direct influence on policy. In particular, it must be free of any suggestion that it can be politically muzzled. I have considerable hesitation in endorsing this legislation for that reason. I cannot give it the welcome it was given by Senators from the other side of the House. The Minister of State, Deputy Seán Power, who is a decent man, is standing in for the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney. Will he outline to her the concerns I have expressed? Other Senators may have similar concerns. I was not able to be present in the Chamber for Senator Henry's contribution. I assume she made some similar points, but I am not sure. I simply do not know.

Mr. S. Power: Senator Henry has a lot in common with Senator Norris.

Mr. Norris: That is good.

Mr. Browne: Senator Henry welcomed the Bill.

Mr. Norris: Did she really?

Mr. Browne: She did.

Mr. Norris: She does not have quite as much in common with me as the Minister of State thought.

Acting Chairman: If the Senator reads the transcript of this debate when it has been published, he might be in a better position.

Mr. Norris: I read nothing other than the reports of Seanad proceedings. I keep a constant supply in the lavatory. I find it extremely moving.

Acting Chairman: I am sure Senator Henry's speech will make nice bedside reading.

Mr. Norris: Excellent. I do not attend to such lower needs in the bed. Perhaps the Acting Chairman does, but that marks another significant cultural difference.

Order of Business - 3rd April 2007

Order of Business – 3rd April 2007

Mr. Norris: I join with Senator Brian Hayes in his concern about the attitude of the Government towards the National Children's Hospital in Tallaght. I will simply point out that the name "national children's hospital" resides legally with Tallaght Hospital. This must be examined as does the fact that the Government gave clear commitments to Tallaght that the National Children's Hospital would be continued and developed at Tallaght. One waits to see what will materialise.
The situation with regard to the nurses is serious. It worries many people in the community who rely on the professional standards of nursing and medical care when they are taken ill. It is ridiculous to have a situation where nursing staff supervise less qualified people than themselves and are paid less than the less qualified people they supervise. It is an absurd situation and is extremely aggravating for nursing staff.
However, although I have always strongly supported the nurses, I believe they are in danger of losing public sympathy if they threaten or use the strike weapon. This is very clear from soundings one hears on every radio and television programme, in the newspapers and speaking with people on the streets.

[Mr. Norris]
I would caution the nursing profession against taking too strong and militant a stance as I am afraid it may lose public sympathy.
I join Senator O'Toole in expressing an interest in No. 1 on the Order of Business. I was going to indicate my regret at it being passed without debate but there seems to be a mechanism whereby it may come back to us. It is very important we discuss it. The Schengen agreement is a complex and important matter but this also deals with the exchange of information.
I am in possession of information which leads me to believe that people in this country who come from other territories sometimes have their cases very seriously prejudiced by the lodging with the system of completely untrue and anonymous information, which is subsequently used by the Irish authorities against such people. There is no recourse, and when people ask what the information is, they are told it will not be given to them. It is a Kafkaesque scenario and one I propose to explore a little further.
I refer to the point raised by Senator Tuffy. I also read the article by Carol Coulter, an extremely fine journalist who is very clear and dispassionate in what she writes. Mr. John Waters wrote an extraordinary article, published yesterday in the same newspaper, which seemed set on undermining her position and professional role. It made some extraordinary insinuations against her. It is very strongly rebutted by Dr. Coulter in this morning's paper.
A concern of mine as I read the article by Mr. Waters was that he seemed to deplore the existence of the guardian ad litem, to which I would take great exception.

An Cathaoirleach: Is the Senator seeking a debate?

Mr. Norris: I thank the Cathaoirleach for his assistance and I am definitely seeking a debate. The guardian ad litem was introduced in this House after a long battle as a result of an amendment put down by myself and seconded by Senator Ryan of the Labour Party. The Senator was not then of the Labour Party, he was still moderately independent.

An Cathaoirleach: We do not need that complete detail.

Mr. B. Hayes: It is an historical analysis.

Mr. Norris: I am sure the Cathaoirleach does not need it because his knowledge of the Seanad and its history is encyclopaedic. It must be said the system was first introduced in Britain as a result of a case in which a young girl was returned to her abusive family and murdered.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator-----

Mr. Norris: It was to prevent that kind of scenario that the guardian ad litem system was introduced. I have no regrets about being responsible for it. I thank the Cathaoirleach for his helpful suggestion.

Adjournment Debate - School Funding - 29th March 2007

Adjournment Debate - Schools Funding - 29th March 2007

Mr. Norris: This matter is about Drumnigh Montessori school, in the suburbs of Dublin. The school has been operating for the past 45 years. It has been extremely successful but the school is experiencing difficulties. It has two classes dealing with children aged three to six and one for children aged six to nine. The school has been in existence since 1962. It has occupied premises in various locations over the years including Malahide, Baldoyle, Portmarnock and Raheny. Currently, the school leases three classrooms from St. Colmcille's school in Donaghmede but it has a problem in that it has been asked to vacate those premises.
One of the difficulties is that of recognition. I ask the Minister to consider proper recognition of Montessori schools. I am aware the Minister for Finance plays a role in that because he holds the purse strings, and very effectively too, but it is his colleague, the Minister for Education and Science, a decent, humane woman, who is centrally involved in this matter. I am sure she would agree with me, particularly if the Minister were able to tell her that this is, as she possibly knows already, the centenary of the opening of the first Montessori school, Casa dei Bambini, in Italy. It would be a remarkable and appropriate gesture by the Government to mark this international centenary of a great educational movement by recognising for the first time the work done by these schools. The teachers hold certificates from the Association of Montessori in Ireland, AMI, and that qualification is recognised.

Mr. Norris]
The Minister for Finance is a decent man who comes from the same bit of bog as my maternal ancestors. I always like dealing with a midlands man and one who is practical and sensible. As Minister for Finance he must guard the country's finances carefully but recognition of the school will not cause immense problems in that regard because it involves a relatively small number of schools. Only eight Association Montessori Internationale (AMI) primary schools in Ireland teach six to nine year olds and only one teaches children up to the age of 12. There is a small number of St. Nicholas Montessori schools, with which the AMI is allied, and the Montessori Education Centre, which is almost directly opposite my house in North Great George's Street and does very good work. There will not be a great drain on the Exchequer and it could be even helpful.
Montessori schools are very valuable in educational terms because children are encouraged to learn at their own pace through self-discovery and project work. The primary curriculum is completely covered by the Montessori method and the standards of all subjects, including Irish, are equal to that in national schools. One of the initial hesitations about Montessori schools was that they did not teach Irish but now they do.
Montessori schools provide very valuable assistance because there are overcrowded schools all over the country in huge new residential developments. The Montessori education movement can take some of the strain from the school system, particularly in the area to which I refer, where there has been substantial housing development, as the Minister knows. One only has to fly over Baldoyle, Portmarnock or Malahide to see the enormous sprawl. There is tremendous pressure on school places which the Montessori system could play some role in relieving.
Developers are obliged to make provision for community needs in new residential zones and will provide school buildings but can do so only for recognised schools, which is another reason these schools should be recognised. The principal of St. Colmcille's school, which has been very helpful to Drumnigh school, has made it aware that its accommodation might not be available after this year. The school has made various heroic efforts to find alternative accommodation but has not been successful. I wish to record my admiration for the fact that Drumnigh Montessori primary school is run by a volunteer board of management, comprising parents of the children at the school.
This year is the centenary of Montessori and the opening of the Casa dei Bambini in Italy. The school now teaches Irish and its teachers have recognised qualifications. It can help ease the considerable pressure from residential development in the area and will be provided with facilities by the developers if it is recognised. I know this is not the Minister's particular area but, as I have already indicated, there is a financial angle and I hope I have been able to demonstrate that, far from being a drain on the Exchequer, recognition of such schools can actually prove cost-effective.
I know the Minister will reply with a prepared script but I hope he will draw the matter to the attention of the Minister for Education and Science. I am glad to see he is nodding because the Minister for Education and Science is well-motivated and, like the Minister for Finance, able, gifted and decent. I hope she will be able to consider it and to meet with a delegation to discuss the matter. We must give recognition to alternative educational methods which have proved themselves by the production of excellent, well-rounded children.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): The Senator has outlined in detail the situation that applies to Drumnigh school and the wider role the Montessori movement plays in education. We welcome the plurality of approaches which now characterises the provision of education in Ireland, as exemplified not only by the Montessori movement but by Educate Together and various other providers, in addition to the established, traditional primary school system.
I thank the Senator for raising the matter as it affords me the opportunity on behalf of the Minister to outline to this House the Government's strategy for providing support for child care facilities, and to outline the position of the Department of Education and Science regarding the application for recognition as a primary school by the proposed patron of Drumnigh Montessori primary school, Donaghmede, Dublin 13.
The Montessori method of education, among other methods within a very diverse sector, is well recognised and respected and contributes significantly to the development of early childhood education in Ireland. St. Nicholas Montessori teachers' association, which promotes the development of Montessori education in Ireland, is one of the seven national voluntary child care organisations which receives annual funding from the Office of the Minister for Children under the quality sub-measure of the equal opportunities child care programme and its successor programme, the national child care investment programme. The Montessori teachers' association is also represented on the national child care co-ordinating committee, to allow it to feed into national child care and early education policy.
Capital and staffing grants are made available to child care facilities, including those based wholly or partially on the Montessori model, under the equal opportunities child care programme 2000-2006, and the national child care investment programme 2006-2010. These programmes are administered by the Office of the Minister for Children, who might have some role in resolving this matter.
The Department of Education and Science recognises two Montessori qualifications for primary teaching posts such as resource teaching posts, posts in special classes and in special schools. The two recognised qualifications are the three-year full-time course in the Association Montessori Internationale College, Mount St. Mary's, Milltown, Dublin 14, and the HETAC-accredited BA in Montessori Education or BA (Hons.) in Montessori Education in St. Nicholas Montessori College, Dún Laoghaire. Teachers with Montessori qualifications recognised by the Department are also eligible to work as substitute teachers in mainstream primary schools.
Montessori education, together with other methods in the early childhood field, will continue to contribute to the development of early childhood care and education services in Ireland. Developments in this sector will be co-ordinated within the overall policy framework of the Office of the Minister for Children, which was established by the Government in December 2005 to bring together, and promote close co-operation among the relevant areas of the Department, the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
The application for the recognition of Drumnigh Montessori primary school as a national primary school must be assessed in accordance with the criteria and procedures for the recognition of new primary schools. It is important to note that one of the criteria requires fully-qualified primary teachers for mainstream teaching. Under this process, applications for the recognition of new primary schools are assessed by an independent advisory board, the new schools advisory committee or NSAC, on the basis of the facts provided by the applicant in support of the case for the new school and the likely demand for places.
The proposed patron of Drumnigh Montessori primary school submitted documentation to the NSAC for its consideration. However, this application did not comply with the formal application procedures in place for provisional recognition of primary schools for September 2007. This process requires that the notification of intention to apply for recognition and application for registration of patron be submitted on or before 20 April 2006. This is then followed by a public consultation process and the formal application must be submitted on or before 31 January 2007. As the application from Drumnigh missed both the notification and consultation deadlines the application could not be considered and the applicant was advised accordingly.
I recognise the Senator has raised this matter to see if there is any way around the bureaucratic rule in question. The rule is there for a reason and the Department must be able to plan for a September intake by making decisions in good time. The position of the school has been exacerbated by the fact that the existing arrangements may not hold for another year, putting its existence at risk.

29 March 2007
Text:
[Mr. Cowen]
It has been exacerbated because existing arrangements may no longer hold for a further year, which might put the existence of the school at risk. Even if the formal recognition issue cannot be addressed in this year, I hope the problem regarding the physical surroundings of the school that are at risk, because the other principal is not in a position to guarantee their availability for much longer, can be addressed in some way so that the benefits the school is obviously bringing to the educational system can be maintained. Perhaps next year the formal recognition issue can be resolved meeting the criteria set out.

Mr. Norris: I thank the Minister for the courtesy of his reply. In particular he teased out the issue and went directly to one of the points in which I am interested. Although it is too late for this year, perhaps the school might be able to get in on the next cycle. The Minister appeared to nod when I asked him to get his colleague involved and pass on the information. I hope he will do so. This indicates the difficulty of a Minister having a script prepared in advance. It is inevitable-----

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has presented his cases and he cannot restate it. He may ask a question if he wishes.

Mr. Norris: I was effusively thanking the Minister. In terms of my effusiveness I must finish by saying that the Minister used the word "bureaucratic". I have a note written down that it is a recital of bureaucratic and legalistic points. So it is, but perhaps he can get behind it in a meeting with the Minister. I thank the Cathaoirleach for his indulgence.

Mr. Coghlan: The Minister's courtesy and civility are acknowledged.

Order of Business - 29th March 2007

Order of Business – 29th March 2007
Mr. Norris: I request that we discuss fishing either in this session or in the session after Easter because I see that the European Union is introducing a ban on the dumping of fish. Between 30% and 90% of the catch off the west coasts of Ireland and Scotland is dumped and this an appalling waste of resources, especially as our fish stocks are threatened.
Despite the fact that I was knocked off the electoral register for a while in North Great George's Street, I was polled. I have now received a letter from Bertie. I can call him Bertie because he signs his name so and he calls me David. He tells me that owing to the level of security in my flat complex, it is not always possible for him to meet me so he invites me to meet him at his clinic in Drumcondra. Could the Cathaoirleach tell him that I am too busy in this House and will have to await his visit?

An Cathaoirleach: I do not think that is relevant to the Order of Business.

Mr. Norris: I beg the Cathaoirleach's pardon and I am sure he will find the next item entirely relevant. Although we are graced by the presence of the Acting Leader, Senator Dardis, today, it is a pity the Leader cannot be with us because she is a woman of international celebrity, as we learn from the property pages of The Irish Times.

An Cathaoirleach: This is also not relevant to the Order of Business.

Mr. Norris: The Irish Times points out that while the United Nations has goodwill ambassadors, the Secretary General, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, can eat his heart out because Athlone has Senator O'Rourke. Cleopatra may have ruled the Nile but the scintillating Senator is queen of the Shannon.

Mr. Dardis: What is Senator Norris queen of?

Senator Norris's Private Members Motion - Ethical Foreign Policy - 28th March 2007

Senator Norris’s Private Members Motion – Ethical Foreign Policy – 28th March 2007

Mr. Norris: I move:
That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to develop and implement an ethical foreign policy.
I find it interesting that the Government has amended this motion in a manner that goes right to the nub of the issue. It is clear that in bypassing any mention of ethics, the Government acknowledges its guilt in this area and it is notable that there is no Minister from the Department of Foreign Affairs to hear this motion. The reference to the values of the people is a calculated insult of the type delivered by the late Mr. Charles Haughey when he announced his equivocal half-measure on contraception, describing it as an Irish solution for an Irish people.
In requesting the Government to develop and implement an ethical foreign policy, I recognise that I am asking for a lot. Despite some gestures in this regard, notably by Mr. Robin Cook in Britain which fizzled out after the discovery of the export of Hawk aircraft to Indonesia for use in the military oppression of the people of East Timor and a few fitful outbreaks of conscience in our Department of Foreign Affairs under the leadership of Mr. Frank Aiken, Mr. Dick Spring and Mr. David Andrews, such a policy has nowhere been given a substantial trial. This is because, owing to the weakness of human motivation, perceived self-interest almost invariably conquers and it is frequently expressed in economic terms.
Finance plays a major role in this matter and I welcome the fact that the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, indicated at a meeting I arranged with the Darfur investment group that it is the Government's intention to direct agencies such as the National Pensions Reserve Fund to ensure investments on behalf of the State are ethical. This area will be addressed more fully by my colleague, Senator Brendan Ryan.
Genuine altruism is rare, even in individuals, and levels of cynicism seem to exist in direct relationship with political seniority and closeness to our possession of power. The higher one goes, the fewer the principles. The historian, Edward Gibbon, said the Emperor Marcus Aurelius was almost unique among rulers in that his overriding concern was not self-advancement but the welfare of his people. This ideal must, in the 21st century, be extended from a national or imperial base to a global one. I am asking that Ireland, as a country, follow the example of the noble Roman.
At this point in the discussion I am usually reminded by people on the other side of realpolitik and national self-interest, so let me repeat a story I have told on a number of occasions in this House. When the then Government proposed to sell beef to the army of Saddam Hussein, I was one of a limited number of people in political life who opposed the transaction. For my pains I was lectured from across the House by the Government spokesman on foreign affairs who said that, while what I was suggesting might be the moral thing to do, could Ireland afford it? Within a short space of time there was an outbreak of war in the region, financial arrangements collapsed, Saddam Hussein welshed on the deal and the Irish taxpayer was burdened not only with the £100 million owed by the Iraqi regime for the beef but was also awarded the privilege of paying hefty sums to that very pragmatic cattle dealer, Mr. Larry Goodman.

We, therefore, did the immoral thing and paid through the nose for it. My point is that although there may appear to be economic inconvenience in the short to medium term, in the long term decency and moral standards pay off. As the Bible states: "Cast your bread upon the waters and it shall return to you an hundred fold."
Let us stay with Iraq for a while and witness the unholy contortions of the Government in maintaining a morally bankrupt policy of subservience to the criminal Administration of George Bush, no matter whither it leads. When 100,000 people marched in the streets of Dublin against the war, the Taoiseach claimed they were agreeing with him. This may be open to doubt but it is surely incontrovertible that the overwhelming mass of Irish people wish to disassociate themselves from the way in which the Taoiseach, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Government have connived in the deliberate employment of torture as an instrument of policy by the US Administration. The two Aherns, Bertie and Dermot, claim that Condoleezza Rice gave them a clear assurance in the matter of torture. While this may be the case, she did not provide the assurance Bertie and Dermot passed on to the Irish people. She clearly indicated that the US Administration was committed to the use of torture and openly acknowledged that even at Guantanamo Bay, a place whose exact location and function we at least know, unlike the unspecified torture sites in eastern Europe, procedures include hooding, sleep deprivation and the use of white noise.
The Taoiseach's memory is selective but even he can hardly have forgotten that our Government successfully sued the United Kingdom Government when it engaged in these practices at Castlereagh police station in the North and won a judgment which made it perfectly clear that in the view of the European Court of Human Rights, a view our Government enthusiastically accepted at the time, these practices constituted torture. When Condoleezza Rice told our Government that hooding, white noise and sleep deprivation were employed in Guantanamo Bay, she was clearly admitting the use of torture. Moreover, the commitment to torture of Bush and his cronies was made perfectly explicit in the morally disgraceful and ethically unjustifiable attempts made to force a measure through Congress facilitating and legalising torture, including methods not seen since the Gestapo left the Avenue Foch.
Neither was our collaboration merely verbal given that we actively collaborated with the use of Shannon Airport for the purpose of extraordinary rendition, a foul practice in which civilians are kidnapped, bundled into aeroplanes, drugged, shackled and delivered to countries such as Egypt, Jordan and Syria where torture is routinely practised in a manner that has occasionally led to hypocritical protests from both Britain and the United States. This practice is carried out secretly. However, in recent years, using information concerning aeroplane registration, flight patterns, etc., supplied to me by gallant people at Shannon Airport such as Ed Horgan and Tim Hourigan, I have sought to make these matters public through debate in the House and by other means.
All these matters were a by-product of George W. Bush's military adventure in the Middle East. The war in Iraq was fought clearly for logistical and economic advantage, especially in the interests of multinational corporations such as Bechtel and Halliburton with which the eminence grise of the American Administration, Dick Cheney, has close and very unhealthy ties. This has happened before.
What was novel, however, about the Bush Administration's ill-advised and barbarous attack was not only its hypocrisy but also that it came as part of a package which included the deliberate undermining of international humanitarian protection such as the Geneva Convention and the institution of the United Nations. Led by the extreme right, the United States Government deliberately corrupted every standard of decency and legality for which the West has stood. Habeas corpus flies out the window and instead of flinging back in their faces the lies propounded by the stumbling and inadequate Bush and his sidekick, the unspeakable automaton, Ms. Condoleezza Rice, the Aherns, Bertie and Dermot, grovellingly accept every humiliating fiction they are fed with the alacrity one would expect of a flea-ridden poodle with piles accepting a rubber cushion from the hands of its master.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should refer to the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs by their proper titles.

Mr. Norris: I will use their titles but all the other language I have used when referring to them stands.
Through all of this, the corruption of language is a significant and telling factor. In a revealing moment the Lady Macbeth of the Middle East, Condoleezza Rice, described the horrendous bloodbath that followed the Israeli assault upon Lebanon as "the birth pangs of a new democracy". As I indicated, under the Bush Administration the West has descended to values not seen since Adolf Hitler, but people are afraid to squeak. Even under Hitler, however, brave individuals were doing important work. I think, in particular, of the late Victor Klemperer, a cousin of the great and distinguished conductor, Otto Klemperer. He used his time in seclusion during the Nazi tyranny to compile an academic analysis of the linguistic system employed by the Third Reich.
Language is important and I invite Senators to examine for a moment some of the language employed. "Shock and awe", the description of the initial barrage of bombing against the civilian population of Baghdad, could easily be translated as "Blitzkrieg". "Shake and bake" is the euphemism used to conceal the illegal use of white phosphorus against personnel by the United States Army in Falluja. "Extraordinary rendition" is another euphemism employed to cover the nasty reality of kidnap and torture.
We need a Victor Klemperer in our universities to conduct an analysis of the way in which the Bush Administration has abused language to perpetuate tyranny. I hope this may be done and believe it will be, for although it has taken a long time, there are signs that a corrective is being applied, even within the American system. Seventy percent of the American people are now against the war, making it clear that those of us who consistently opposed the war and were accused of anti-Americanism for our pains were the most pro-American of all.
In response to allegations about Ireland's involvement in extraordinary rendition, the Government has consistently obfuscated and lied. In the two reports produced and adopted on this issue, one by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the second by the European Parliament, the Minister for Foreign Affairs did not answer clear questions which were put to him. Instead, as he had done in this House and consistently to the press, he insisted upon answering questions he had not been asked.
I defy any person to point to one instance where I or any of the others leading the charge in this matter claimed that torture victims were transported through Shannon Airport on their way to torture centres, yet this is what the Minister consistently denies. Why does he deny something which has not been said? The reason is that he cannot answer the charges made and the charge I and others have made, namely, that the fact this country collaborated with the United States by assisting aeroplanes on the return leg of their villainous and shameful journey is incontrovertibly true.
The torture circuit is an unbroken line in which Ireland has played a mean, cowardly and disgusting role. To give one example, on 17 February 2003, an Egyptian citizen who had been granted asylum in Italy, Abu Omar, was violently abducted in broad daylight in the Via Guerzoni in Milan. The incident was witnessed by various civilians, including a woman called Rezk Merfat who saw the terrified Abu Omar being jumped on, struggling and crying for help and being forced into a van. Abu Omar was then taken to the American airbase at Aviano where he was flown a short distance, put into another aeroplane with United States markings which delivered him to Cairo. This, according to legal documents, is what happened to him:
The first measure was to leave him in a room where incredibly loud and unbearable noise was made ... he has experienced damage to his hearing. The second kind of torture was to place him in a sauna at tremendous temperature and straight afterwards to put him in a cold store room ... occasioning terrible pain to his bones ... as if they were cracking. The third was to hang him upside down ... and apply live wires to give electric shocks to sensitive parts of the body including his genitals. He has suffered damage to his motory and urinary systems ... he became incontinent.
He was tortured for a further seven months and has never been charged with any offence. However, on the return journey to the United States from Cairo, as part of the torture circuit, on the following day, 18 February, the Gulfstream jet stopped off to be refuelled at Shannon Airport. No protest has ever been made at this gross violation of international and Irish law by a so-called friendly government. This has all been done because of the Irish Government's gutlessness in the face of American capital.
I have mentioned the late Frank Aiken. How horrified he would be at the queasy way in which we have attempted, without recourse to either the sovereign Parliament of Ireland or the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, to shift our firm position that Tibet was a separate and sovereign country. We have also said little about organ harvesting, an appalling practice about which my colleague, Senator O'Toole, will speak. Again, money is the reason for these developments.
Let us examine the situation in the Middle East. There has been a systematic violation by the Israeli Government of the most basic human rights of the Palestinian people. We know full well that in the external association agreement between the European Union and the state of Israel, there are attached to this treaty important human rights clauses. However, we have done nothing to assert these clauses and even my modest proposal that the Government should support the establishment of a monitoring group to oversee the human rights situation in the occupied territories has not been pursued by the Government. Once more, United States pressure, the influence of American money and the perceived threat to jobs financed here by US multinationals has, I suspect, played its role.
In the past various Government's have taken up decent and moral positions on certain issues. However, sadly, on most occasions it has had to be shamed into this by the action of courageous individuals such as the Dunnes Stores strikers and Tom Hyland, whose heroic defence of the people of East Timor is well known to this House. I admired the staunchness of the late Mr. Haughey when he refused to support Margaret Thatcher in her Falklands War adventure.
What we need is an understanding of the position announced by the former Senator and President of Ireland, Mary Robinson, in her work on ethical globalisation. We need to understand that this small and fragile planet is threatened not just environmentally but politically by the pursuit of narrow selfish and sectional interest and the failure to date of any major state to attempt to establish an ethical foreign policy. Sadly, the Government has in its amendment made it clear it has no intention of supporting these standards.


Mr. Norris: I thank all my colleagues who took part in this debate. It is a pity the Minister paid such a flying visit. I wish he had been here to listen to some of my comments and tried to answer them. He simply obfuscated. Questions were not answered, which was extremely disappointing.
I contrast this with the refreshingly honest, though sadly short, speech of Senator Mansergh because he understood exactly what I was getting at and said clearly and directly that what he felt was necessary for this country and others was a kind of realpolitik. Did I hear a slight variation? Was it echtpolitik? I thought he might have made that little distinction, which would, no doubt, be lost on many of our listeners. Senator Mansergh argued that its aim was to pursue the interests of the State.

Dr. Mansergh: And ideals.

Mr. Norris: Yes, but the interests came first. Senator Mansergh did not put the ideals first, which is very telling. That is a position. It is a very old-fashioned 19th-century position. In a world that is globalised, it is no longer relevant. It is the one thing that will get us into trouble. At least, that is my opinion. However, Senator Mansergh was honest and open and dealt with it.
If, by realpolitik, he means we must talk to people we do not particularly respect or admire, he is right. Certainly, in respect of the Middle East, I would be far closer to his analysis than that of my friend and colleague, Senator Quinn. It is astonishing that we should talk about balance and not realise that it is quite the opposite direction to that suggested by Senator Quinn. The balance is against the unfortunate Palestinians who have been hammered into the ground. Look at the language used. When half the Members of the Palestinian Parliament is snatched and kidnapped, we are told they are detained. When two soldiers in a war situation are taken, they are kidnapped. There is no balance. Funds are being illegally kept away from a legitimate government. It may be regrettable, but it was elected. Do we believe in democracy? Not, it seems, when it comes to the Palestinians.
I was one of those who were crucially involved in the establishment of the first Israeli embassy here and have supported and continue to support the State of Israel, but I will not support any government, however close to it I am, that violates human rights. I have said the same about the British Government in respect of the appalling vista. It is time we grew up and faced these things. If the British Government was involved and implicated in bombings and so on, we must know about it to ensure it never happens again.
I have visited places like Twane and Susea, which are little villages around south Hebron where I am glad to say my former partner, Ezra Yitzrak, whose life is under threat from American settlers, has worked. It sickens me when I hear these people with twangy American voices speak as spokespersons for the Israeli Government and deny the rights of people who have been there for 500, 1,000 and 1,500 years. I have seen what has happened there. I know I will lose votes for saying it, but I will never stop doing so because I do not believe just in Jewish rights, Christian rights or Muslim rights. I believe in human rights for all people.
I am involved in a situation where a small town was demolished and a settlement built on it. This is in the occupied territories and I remind Senator Quinn that it is an occupation. It has been determined to be an occupation under international law and there is no getting away from that. It is also an illegal occupation. In that area, they moved the people out, built their settlement on top of it and employed the Arabs who were displaced to build the houses of their oppressors. Now that the work is finished, they are demolishing the poor, unfortunate makeshift shacks and hovels they have and depriving them of the most basic levels of sanitation and health care. I consider that an outrage and have a video of this incident which I will show to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.

[Mr. Norris]
As someone who is so moved about the Holocaust, it shocks me to see young Israeli soldiers - men and women - laughing, sneering and ridiculing elderly and infirm people as the bulldozers smashed down their pathetic little dwellings. That is not moral, it is disgusting. There is an apartheid system in Israel at the moment, with the development of ghettos. I know that angers my Jewish friends and so it should. It is not the word that should anger them, however, but the reality on the ground that I have seen. It has shamed me and I honour those people like Ezra who stand up against it. I also honour the 19 air force pilots who refused to bomb the occupied territories because it was against international law.
We had an appalling exhibition by the Minister who did not do me the courtesy of coming in and listening to what I had to say. He obfuscated again and answered questions that had not been asked. We know that airplanes were refuelled. Senator White made a reasonable point that perhaps they stopped because of pressure from us. The Minister said we have a great foreign policy and that our approach to Darfur, Zimbabwe and Burma is not motivated by self interest. Of course it is not - we do not have any interests there, so it is easy to say that.
We know they use torture, including water-boarding, and Condoleezza Rice has admitted it. I want the House to listen to a description of water-boarding from an American practitioner who eventually decided to give up this horrible practice. I remind the House that torture is defined by the United Nations as follows: "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession". This is what the man who practised water-boarding had to say about it:
Water-boarding is a torture, period. I ran a water-board team and administered dozens of students through the process as a tool to show what the worst looks like, short of death. This is why there is a doctor and psychologist standing right next to the student - to do it safe and help the student recover. It is not a simulation. When applied you are in fact drowning at a controlled rate. We just determine how much and how long you'll break. Everyone breaks.

Mr. Lydon: It has nothing to do with foreign policy.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Norris is out of time.

Mr. Norris: Fine but I am going to make a final point. We have recently seen this business of the Australian, David Hicks, confessing. Is it any surprise, since he spent five years under these conditions? I have his description of what happened. He had to lie on the floor with very few clothes, the air-conditioning is kept on full so he shivers all the time. He said to another detainee-----

Mr. Mooney: This has nothing to do with foreign policy.

Mr. Norris: The Senator should shut up. He was laughing earlier on and distracting people.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Norris, please.

Mr. Mooney: It has nothing to do with this.

Mr. Norris: Just listen to this. Hicks said to another detainee: "When you get out of here, please tell people my sanity is at risk".

Mr. Lydon: This has absolutely nothing to do with Irish foreign policy.

Mr. Norris: He was attempting to commit suicide. Is it any wonder that he changed his mind?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Norris is out of time.

Mr. Mooney: It had nothing to do with me. That is very unfair.

Mr. Norris: I did not say the Senator was laughing at me.

Mr. Mooney: It has nothing to do with foreign policy.

Order of Business - 28th March 2007

Order of Business – 28th March 2007
Mr. Norris: I am grateful to the Cathaoirleach for the five-minute sos because it allowed me to pick up the statement on affordable homes. I understand why the head of the Affordable Homes Partnership would object to the suggestion about brown envelopes. I do not know who made the suggestion but it certainly was not me. However, the head has missed the point because we were talking about the fact that many of the homes do not seem to be affordable and are for people who have very considerable incomes. A joint income of €75,000 is not inconsiderable and the homes were meant for nurses and others such employees on approximately €32,000. Homes are not being provided for individuals in this category. The homes are granted by lottery but the people who have entered are never told when it is held or the result unless they win a house. This does not suggest the existence of transparency and accountability.
On a related matter raised by Senator Ryan, there was a very good debate last night on the Social Welfare Bill during which I made the point that not only is it snobbish to exclude people on rent supplement from the nice little areas so they will not discommode those who can afford to buy homes therein, it is also a form of apartheid. It was I who used the word "apartheid". Focus Ireland said of this matter that, for the first time, there is in primary legislation a legal mechanism that prohibits specific categories of people from living in certain areas. The Cathaoirleach knows as well as I do that this is apartheid.

An Cathaoirleach: We will not have an extended debate on it during the Order of Business.

Mr. Norris: I would not dream of doing so.

An Cathaoirleach: I hope not.

Mr. Norris: We debated the matter last night but there was a related point I could not raise because it concerned the Department of Health and Children. Could we have a debate on health? Could the Leader raise with the Minister for Health and Children the fact that the Government now proposes to take most of the disability allowance from those with a mental disability who are staying in residential homes? This is just like what caused the scandal over nursing home charges.
At the weekend, the Government promised a great splurge of benefits and the Minister for Social and Family Affairs in his speech last night outlined all the Government is doing for the disabled, but it gives with one hand and takes away with the other. The disability allowance is now to be paid directly to the residential facility, thus by-passing the carers and leaving the recipients with only €35. This is a miserable pittance with which to pay for all one's needs. Many carers and family members of the disabled are really concerned about this. Will the Leader obtain some information on this matter from the Department of Health and Children? I can make mine available to her. We are walking into another situation similar to that which caused the scandal over nursing home charges.

Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2007 - 2nd Stage Debate - 27th March 2007

Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2007 – 2nd Stage Debate - 27th March 2007

Mr. Norris: Senator Cox has done an honour
to this House by her courageous and clear speech.
It is not easy to offer a direct and open critique
of Government policy from the Government benches
but this is what Seanad E´ ireann is all about.
In her quite outstanding speech, Senator Cox
clearly illustrated what the Seanad is for, namely,
non-partisan debate. While some of what I will
say later may appear to be partisan, I salute this
kind of independence. It is very important.
Senator Cox is quite correct about the question
of maternity benefit.
I wish to return to a few other areas where the
Government is giving with one hand and taking
away with another. This kind of rather meanminded
accounting goes on in all Governments.
It is not just a Fianna Fa´ il exercise, it is a Department
of Finance exercise and it is pretty
wretched. I listened and watched with delighted
as the Minister of State, to paraphrase his final
paragraph, tripped gaily over the stepping stones
to a bright future. He was obviously afraid he
would fall in because he did it all in slow motion.
That is why we do not have quite as much time
as we might otherwise have. On the other hand,
it was a most interesting and provocative speech.
I wish to turn to this speech before I address the
two issues of particular interest.
There is an echo of Bertie’s rabble-rousing
speech out in Citywest. The Government will
implement the largest social welfare package and
all the rest of it, but when one examines the Bill
closely, some troubling issues arise. I refer to support
for lone parents, for example, and the
expanded availability and range of educational
opportunities. What about the fact that I and
many other people have been deluged in recent
years by ordinary members of the public, not constituents,
who are concerned because owing to
the nitpicking provisions that are included, they
have been excluded from schemes such as the
back to education allowance and the vocational
training opportunities scheme? This is
regrettable.
There is a lot of old bilge in the Bill in terms
of the means test for job seeker’s allowance. Reference
was made to reflecting the changes in
society. Like hell they reflect the changes in
society. We are back again to this nonsense about
spouses and how it is women who are usually in
this role and all the rest of it. References to
spouses and couples were sprinkled throughout
the Minister’s speech, yet we know perfectly well
the Government, in the person of the previous
Minister, Deputy Coughlan, operated to define
people out of their rights. The Government is not
talking about couples in the true sense. It should
refer to heterosexual couples every time the word
“couples” is used because gay people have been
mean-mindedly defined out of the rights to which
they are entitled under equality legislation.
A positive spin is put on the supplementary
welfare allowance. This is one of the issues with
which I am most concerned. The Minister of State
referred to “an extension of the qualifying conditions
and an easing of the rent supplement
means test”. The Government is going to “simplify
the means test, so that a rent supplement
recipient can judge the impact of an offer of
work” and so and so forth.
Then we get on to the business of regenerated
areas. It was stated:
This latter measure supports the State’s significant
investment on regeneration in areas
such as Ballymun. The objective is to achieve a
better balance between private, social and
affordable housing.
I give a hollow laugh when I hear about affordable
housing. We heard about it the other day
when we discovered that to qualify for some of
these affordable housing units, one has to have
an income between \47,000 and \58,000. That is
not very affordable. Then we have these inexplicable
and opaque lotteries. They are the reverse
of openness, transparency and accountability.
We then encountered this nasty little phrase,
which we do not really understand. “In taking this
approach, provision is made to protect existing
tenants.” What is meant by “protect”? I would
like to know what lies beneath this expression.
Who is being protected and what is the necessity
for it? Towards the end of the speech some elucidation
is given in the analysis of the sections. It
was stated that section 25 includes measures “to
preclude the payment of rent supplement in areas
of regeneration, as identified by the Department”
of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
In other words, these areas are too nice,
too middle class and too clean to allow people on
rent supplement. That is a nasty form of apartheid.
It is snobbery and discrimination.
Those are my words but I received a pained
response from Focus Ireland which made the
point that this creates in primary legislation a
legal mechanism which prohibits specific categories
of people from living in certain areas. That
can only be described as apartheid, but Focus
Ireland is too polite to say it. This is a most
regressive step. I would like the Minister to reexamine
this matter. I would also like an explanation
why the Department continues to use
terms like “couples”, “spouses”, etc. when it does
not mean couples in the broad sense. I am partisan
on this issue because I deal with people who
have been denied their rights. This is unjust and
unfair.
I wish to return to Senator Cox’s contribution.
She referred to water pollution in Galway. A
number of years ago, briefed by people in Trinity,
I raised the issue of cryptospiridiosis. I could
hardly spell it let alone pronounce it at that stage
but I learned a certain amount about it. I also pay
tribute to my colleague, Senator Henry. Over a
number of years she has consistently raised the
issue of the quality of water. It is an extraordinary
irony that on World Water Day last week, we
heard some of the most disastrous results arising
from this pollution of the water. This is a serious
situation and one person is critically ill in
hospital.
Although there are some positive aspects to it,
and the Government will put the best spin possible
on it, we are charged in this House with prising
open the lid on some of the less positive features
of the Bill. I salute Senator Cox. I note she
said she would table an amendment. I hope she
does if she is not satisfied with the result. She
raised a bit of a stink in the House last week when
she said she would table an amendment. On this
side of the House we were all hungry for that
amendment so that we could vote on it and we
could see which way Senator Cox would vote, but
whichever way she does, it does not take away
from the fact she is a courageous, intelligent
woman who knew what she was speaking about
on the Bill. She and Fianna Fa´ il did honour to
this House by that exercise of freedom of speech
which I now propose to hand over to my
esteemed colleague, Senator Henry.

Order of Business - 27th March 2007

Order of Business – 27th March 2007

Mr. Norris: I join my colleagues in paying tribute
to the remarkable agreement reached yesterday
in Belfast. In particular, I thought Mr. Adams
played a fine game. He could have stymied the
whole thing if he wanted to be petty and could
have refused Dr. Paisley the room for manoeuvre
he sought. This was a type of last-gasp saloon for
Dr. Paisley, who was christened “Dr. No” by
newspapers. If he ever wanted to achieve his
ambition of becoming First Minister, this was the
moment it had to be done. I am glad agreement
was reached. Senator Maurice Hayes is right in
saying the body language was important. The visual
impact of seeing on television the two of them
sitting almost side by side was very interesting. I
hope that in the general feeling of well-being we
do not forget the cost, the tragic loss of almost
4,000 lives and a large number of people crippled
for ever. I hope those still suffering will not be
forgotten when the new arrangement comes into
being.
The situation is hopeful and perhaps it can be
used as a model for other parts of the world, for
example, the Middle East. I seek a debate on the
Middle East because we do not have the same
standards in dealing with Israel and Palestine. It
is important we also include in debate areas like
Iran and the taking “into detention”, to use a
neutral phrase, of 15 United Kingdom sailors. I
noted the extraordinary arrogance of the spokesman
who described the boat as being in “our
waters”. I wonder how the sea around Iraq has
suddenly become British territorial waters. I have
considerable hesitation about accepting the
United Kingdom’s version of events, particularly
since the local Iraqi commander said clearly the
sailors were in Iranian waters. In 2004, we had a
similar provocative incident and it was determined
then those involved were in fact in Iranian
waters. I hope they are not attempting to provoke
another military adventure by Mr. Bush.
I support Senator Terry’s comments on the
Taoiseach’s speech. I was out protesting the war,
but I heard his speech in the evening and found
it a fantastic performance. It was real barnstorming
and he hit all the right notes. I have no doubt
there will be a bounce. I have just one hesitation
and I am sure the Cathaoirleach supports me on
this. When the Taoiseach said he believed in
attacking problems, not personalities, I had a sudden
flashback and remembered his attack on
Deputy Joe Higgins in the Da´ il. Then I
remembered——
An Cathaoirleach: Order please. Many other
Senators are offering.
Mr. Norris: He said very clearly that Deputy
Higgins was a failed person. Therefore, he was
not a person, just a problem and it was all right
for the Taoiseach to attack him because he is a
problem, not a person.