Order of Business - 25th October 2007

Order of Business - 25th October 2007

I support Senator Harris’s point. It is obvious, and I have said it many times, we should play to our strengths. It is nonsense to say our hands are tied by the CPP. The CPP is supposed to represent the views of the elected Members. On this issue it clearly does not. When Senator Harris spoke a murmur of agreement passed across the Chamber so let us have some action. Last session I mounted a long campaign and eventually squeezed a measly ten minutes extra for the Order of Business but we are still in trouble. Senator Harris is right, we should play to our strengths.
I share Senator Fitzgerald’s concerns and am glad she raised this question of child trafficking. As a result of this morning’s disclosures we know that 320 children, many from African countries, entrusted to the care of the HSE in care facilities have gone missing. Two of them, teenage girls, turned up in brothels. That is an astonishing to have happened.
I welcome the establishment of the committees. It was high time they were established. I am glad my colleagues have put me again on the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I call for a debate on the situation in Cuba particularly in light of the extraordinary attack by President George W. Bush in the last 24 hours. He is man of extraordinary effrontery and a stranger to truth. He unexpectedly and unwittingly hit a correct note when he said there was a gulag on Cuba. There is, and he should know because he is its proprietor. It is called Guantanamo Bay. The United States harbours terrorists, including a terrorist who blew up a civilian aircraft in Cuban airspace, and arrested the agents who are trying to protect civilians against that.

An Cathaoirleach: Does the Senator seek a debate on that?

Senator David Norris: Let us have a debate on Cuba-----

An Cathaoirleach: Does the Senator seek a debate on that?

Senator David Norris: That was the general drift of my remarks. I noted that Senator Coffey seconded Senator Bacik’s motion but in case that was not in order I am happy to do it. Like the call for an extension of the Order of Business and a recognition of its signal importance, there was agreement throughout the House by members of different parties that this is an important matter and I am happy to second it.

An Cathaoirleach: There are 60 Senators in the House, all entitled to make contributions on the Order of Business, but we have only 40 minutes and my hands are tied. I can let somebody ramble for the 40 minutes, but what happens to everybody else? I have no intention of doing that. In a short time I will have to cut in and leave out people who could not speak yesterday or today because people have overrun their speaking time.

Senator David Norris: If that happens I will call a vote every day on the Order of Business. It is nonsense to say our hands are tied by the CPP. Let use get at the CPP and untie them. It is an abuse of democracy and I will not stand for it.

An Cathaoirleach: That motion was agreed by this House. Senator Norris has the right to call a vote each morning if he wishes. I cannot stop him.

Senator David Norris: No, the Cathaoirleach cannot.

Statements on Suicide Prevention Strategy - 24th October 2007

Statement on Suicide Prevention Strategy - 24th October 2007
I welcome the Minister of State and the initiative of taking these statements but I hope the matter goes further because this is a serious problem. I also welcome the fact that we have progressed from a time when we thought there was no suicide in Ireland. The subject was covered up and we used to cock a snook, so to speak, at Sweden and criticise liberal, Protestant northern European countries where people supposedly commit suicide like lemmings. Now we know some of what is happening with regard to suicide in Ireland and this is a hopeful development because facing reality is the first step.
The situation regarding suicide is nightmarish for individuals who feel they must end their lives and this is especially clear on wonderful days such as this when everything looks so beautiful in places like Merrion Square. The idea that a person can be driven to such despair that he or she would seek to end his or her experience of this world is terrible. The impact on families is crushing, they often blame themselves and further services should be provided in this respect. Copycat suicides are frightful and seem contagious and I know of a family of which three members committed suicide.
The elephant in the room regarding a debate on suicide in Ireland was mentioned by Senator Fitzgerald, and I am glad she did so, but I wish there were more references. One of the most significant elements in suicide is the issue of sexual orientation and sexual identity. I honour President McAleese for her recent passionate speech in Kerry that referred to this matter. She stated:

[Homosexuality for young gay men] is a discovery, not a decision and for many it is a discovery which is made against a backdrop where ... they have long encountered anti-gay attitudes which will do little to help them deal openly and healthily with their own sexuality.
The multiplier effect relating to suicide is significant for young gay people and is an established fact so I will put supporting research on the record of the House of which I hope the Minister of State is aware.
In his speech the Minister of State said ’Reach Out - a National Strategy for Action on Suicide Prevention 2005-2014 states: “Information on suicidal behaviour is vital in order to guide the planning of effective services and supports.”’. This is correct, but does the Minister of State possess such information? Does he have such information with regard to young gay people, who are more vulnerable to suicide by a multiplier of six? If so, what is the Minister of State doing about the situation? Why was it that it was left to Belong To, the gay youth group, to contact the Minister of State’s organisation to be included in the survey? This is what I mean when I refer to the elephant in the room.
This issue is not about some old weirdo from North Great George’s Street with a background in Trinity College. I was contacted by the wonderful Doherty family in Donegal who asked me to raise this matter. They had a marvellous young son, Alan Doherty, who was 32 years old and was bullied in school because he was gay. He wanted to become a priest but was told that he could not do so by the church and was later shunned by some members of the church. He moved to England, had a relationship that dissolved, found balance and returned to Ireland. Within a short time of coming back and successfully running an art gallery, he was taunted by schoolchildren and others on the streets of his home town. He killed himself shortly thereafter. His family wrote to me and asked me to raise the issue and I was the only Member of either House who replied to them, which is shameful.
We must acknowledge this problem, examine it and look at the relevant research and statistics because it is very worrying. Belong To is a remarkable group that produced some information for me on young people who access its services. Such young people are concerned at being bullied and victimised in their schools and communities. They perceive a lack of peer support and fear communicating the problem to family members so that, unlike other minority youths, they may not receive support from such a source. Regarding education they see a lack of inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender sexuality in existing school programmes. They feel poor self image can be a consequence of negative societal attitudes to their sexual identities and may internalise homophobia owing to their experiences of homophobia. They will see homophobia in school and in the church.
I wrote in the Irish newspapers about the homophobic diatribes of the then Cardinal Ratzinger that created an intimidating storm. I was approached in this regard, in a work context, by a decent young man who I did not even know was gay. He told me not to let anyone stop me speaking out because when he was 19 years old such stuff was read from the pulpit of his church and caused him to try to kill himself. He said he would be dead but that his mother found him in time. He asked me not to stop speaking out because nobody else would.
There is a great deal of homophobic bullying in schools and teachers are aware of it but do not respond. In this regard, is it appropriate that the State funds schools controlled by a church that has shown itself unworthy of working in the area owing to its handling of serious child abuse while simultaneously engaging in homophobic attacks from the pulpit? The church was given exemption from equality legislation by a mealy mouthed Government and in light of the Ferns Report, it is important that we examine whether that exemption should continue.
The school of education studies at Dublin City University, DCU, conducted a study that found that 94% of social, personal and health education, SPHE, teachers in single sex schools and 82% in co-educational schools were aware of verbal homophobic bullying in their schools. The study also found that 25% of these teachers in single sex schools and 17% in co-educational schools were aware of instances of physical homophobic bullying. In the study, 90% of teachers indicated that there was no mention of gay and lesbian related bullying in their schools’ bullying policies. This is a catastrophic failure because we know such bullying exists, we know the terms of abuse, we know it can be both verbal and physical and we know that the teachers know this and do nothing about it. It is the responsibility of the Minister of State’s Department to address this situation as a matter of urgency if we are serious about suicide, especially when one considers the multiplier effect.
My old university, Trinity College Dublin, conducted a study that found that 50% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth had been bullied at school in the past three months, which compares with 16% of the general youth population. Of this group, 76% had experienced verbal abuse, 39% had experienced physical abuse and one in ten left education earlier than they would have wished. This is an appalling situation and we know that, regarding suicide, there is at least a sixfold multiplier effect on young gay people.
These figures are reflected outside the State and an American study and Northern Ireland study also lie behind what I have quoted. The Government must research this area because we have done none so far. Helen McNamee’s study of 2006 from Northern Ireland found that more than one quarter of young gay respondents had attempted suicide and 70.8% of these had attempted suicide more than once. Almost three-quarters of respondents had thought about taking their own lives, 80.5% of whom said it was related to same sex attraction. Almost one-third had self harmed, 64.4% of whom said it was related to same sex attraction and over one-third had been diagnosed with a mental health problem, the most frequent diagnosis being depression.
I appeal to the House, in light of this catastrophic situation, not to just sit or make speeches. We know there are young, vulnerable people at this moment being bullied in our schools and people being driven to the point of suicide. We can do something about the situation, but we must stop being mealy-mouthed. We must stand up to the bullies, not only those in the schoolyard, but also those in the churches.

Order of Business - 24th October 2007

Order of Business - 24th October 2007

I also welcome the fact that Gerry Adams has condemned the outrage that took place and indicated that members of the nationalist community should give evidence to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I strongly agree with Senator Harris that this awful, brutal incident took place within context of Republicanism. There is no doubt about that. The chilling words, “Now you know who is in charge here” brought to mind that very remarkable programme, “The Killings at Coolacrease”, for which I pay tribute to RTE. It was broadcast last night and Senator Harris played a prominent and distinguished part in it. He was splendidly forthright, decent and honest. I was very ashamed by some of the things that were said. There was a horrible and nasty, small minded bestial attempt to smear retrospectively the Pearson family and I deplore that.

To hear a young historian say the mistake was that they did not finish them off is repulsive in the extreme. I could hardly believe what I was hearing. The ethos that operated in 1921 in Offaly is the same ethos that has operated in the Border counties, and it must be wiped out.
However, I do not share Senator Harris’s optimism about the success of the Italian police with the Mafia. It has not happened, although I wish it would. The Mafia is not the only group. There is also the Camorra and the other group with the unpronounceable name whose tentacles have reached into Berlin. They are very powerful and, like the IRA, they have not gone away. I wish they had.
It was also said in that programme that the Pearson girls were very aggressive. Is that really the case? When 32 armed and dangerous louts break in, having shot their two brothers-----

An Cathaoirleach: Does the Senator want a debate?

Senator David Norris: ----- and let them bleed to death, why do we describe them as aggressive? Let us have a bit of reality.
I agree that the episode should be looked at in the context of the Border and I listened to what Senator O’Toole said about passports. We already have a passport situation. The real Government of Ireland - I speak of Michael O’Leary and Ryanair - makes us produce our passports at the airport, so why should the British not do it? It will certainly put the cat among the Unionist pigeons. They will discover how united their kingdom is at the end of the day.
I want to raise the question of the civil registration and domestic partnership Bill. I had hoped to introduce this, but for technical reasons this will not happen until at least after Christmas. I would welcome it if the Government introduced the Bill in its own time because the situation is becoming urgent. I have a file of e-mails from people, including one from an Irish citizen who points out that last April the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform transposed the free movement directive into Irish law. This means that an EU citizen from outside Ireland can freely bring his or her partner, of the same or opposite sex, into the country but an Irish citizen resident here has no such right. There is this extraordinary anomaly and we are lagging behind. We discussed it in the previous Seanad. I hope there will be the same consensus in both Houses. There is time for us to bite the bullet on this issue and I look forward to the Leader indicating whether he will allow Government time for it. If not, I will have to introduce it after Christmas.

Order of Business - 18th October 2007

Order of Business – 18th October 2007
Senator David Norris: I call for a debate on the role of the Seanad. We are supposed to be a reflective, revising and reforming House, but we increasingly encounter inroads into our speaking time. It is important, for example, to review the format of the Order of Business. It is the most relevant and most widely covered aspect of our business, yet we wish to reduce the time allowed for it. I succeeded in having it extended by ten minutes during the term of the last Seanad. It should be extended even more. It is the means by which Members raise relevant issues and it represents the political cutting edge in this Chamber. We should play to our strengths.
The Cathaoirleach was decent in his undertaking that although he will apply the time regulations strictly, he will allow those Members who are excluded an opportunity to speak at the next opportunity. However, this will only lead to a waiting list. It will be like the situation in the hospitals, with people on trolleys in the anteroom waiting to come in. It is a nonsense.

An Cathaoirleach: I could take a strict line as Cathaoirleach and be abrupt with Members, but that is not what I want.

Senator Paul Coghlan: We know that.

An Cathaoirleach: Perhaps I might get more thanks if I did so. This is the second Chamber of the Houses of the Oireachtas, an important forum. I hope Members who make a contribution on the Order of Business will treat it as such.
There will be no problem in giving Members the opportunity to speak on the Order of Business over the two or three sitting days of the week. I will be fair in this regard. If push comes to shove, however, I will be obliged to cut Members short in their contribution and they may not be well disposed towards me for that reason.

Senator David Norris: I do not at all mean to impugn the Cathaoirleach, either his role or the manner in which he carries it out. However, it is a nonsense to restrict the Order of Business in the way it is being restricted. I accept that the Cathaoirleach is simply obeying the rules of the House. However, it is something we should review.

An Cathaoirleach: The Committee on Procedure and Privilege has agreed the time to be allocated for the Order of Business. My hands are tied.

Senator David Norris: That is my point. However, the Committee on Procedure and Privilege is capable of opening its little mind on this issue.

Senator Donie Cassidy: The Senator should speak to the leader of his group.

Senator David Norris: No. 4 on today's Order Paper is the Defamation Bill 2006, which is listed for Committee Stage. However, two thirds of Members are newly elected to this Seanad and thus have had no opportunity to contribute at the most important level of the debate on this Bill. That is not democracy. This contentious Bill should be reintroduced on Second Stage. We are all aware that the Privacy Bill 2006, which is No. 8 on the Order Paper, is either in suspended animation or dead on its feet. It is important that we address these matters in regard to legislation.
I support Senator O'Toole's comments on those prudent people who availed of the SSIA scheme to accumulate savings. It is grossly wrong that those savings should be taken into account in the means tests for various welfare benefits. Senator O'Toole and I, along with other Members, raised this issue when the savings scheme was introduced and received ministerial guarantees in this House that this would not happen.

Motion on Serious Crime - 17th October 2007

Motion on Serious Crime – 17th October 2007

Senator David Norris: I thank my colleagues for allowing me the opportunity to contribute. I welcome the Minister. I refer to Senator Quinn's comment on the question of arming the Garda. The Minister referred to Katherine O'Toole, a most distinguished woman. I listened to her on radio the other day and she came across as extremely clear and cool and as a very practical woman. She did not want the Garda to be armed in the way that was called for in the House last week and neither do I, as I agree with Senator Quinn. Almost since the foundation of the State, we have had an unarmed Garda force, which is admired all over the world.
However, the ongoing gangland battles are a problem and the people wish to be protected. It is appropriate that we have, and strengthen, a rapid response unit, comprising marksmen who are professionally trained. I spoke to senior members of the Garda earlier - I, unfortunately, do not confer with prime ministers as regularly as my colleague - and they also indicated that they do not want guns but they would like the response force. This is the usual ding dong debate where we are presented with a Fine Gael motion and a Government amendment is attached to it, welcoming and commending such and such. However, the Fine Gael motion contains a specific concentration on the gun issue, which is lacking in the Government's amendment, which praises all kinds of things. It is important to focus on the gun issue. I would be happy with increases in penalties to the most severe level for crimes such as the possession of firearms because we must get to them before they are used.
This relates to the drugs issue. Guns are brought into the State with large scale drug imports. I do not want to rehash my contribution to the earlier debate but if the Minister is interested, it is on the record. It is time to debate the legalisation of drugs at national level. The Minister will not agree with this and this cannot be done by Ireland alone. Such legalisation would have to be introduced on a Europe-wide basis at least. That would remove the financial incentive, which is necessary. The then Government took up an idea a number of years ago that had been promoted by Deputy Gregory, which was the formation of a Criminal Assets Bureau. It strikes at the financial base of criminals. They have demonstrated they are not sensitive to human feeling and they must be hit in their wallets.
The criminalisation of drugs must be examined. In the short term, I would support the Government parties in whatever they can do to assist, at a critical juncture, people who are addicted to heroin and who have been placed at a considerable disadvantage by the withdrawal of methadone services by pharmacists. This is dangerous and irresponsible. These people are among the most vulnerable in our community and their addiction may be triggered again by this withdrawal of service. If that happens, that may lead to circumstances in which they commit further crime.
The motion targets gun crime, about which people are worried. Gun crime has increased considerably and that is the primary issue that needs to be examined while the drugs problem lies beneath it. They both must be examined together in a radical manner.

Statements on the National Drugs Strategy - 17th October 2007

Statements on the National Drugs Strategy – 17th October 2007
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State to the House. We are former colleagues who served together on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Minister of State and I were together at a debate in Trinity College a week or so ago. It was greatly appreciated that he had taken the trouble to come there and talk about the difficult problem of drugs to an audience of young students. He had to leave fairly quickly as he had to be in the House for a vote. Perhaps he will be pleased to learn, however - and certainly I was surprised, as chairman of the debate - that the motion was actually lost, indicating that the young people believed, by a very small majority, it was appropriate to control drugs in this way.
I note what the Minister of State had to say and much of it I would categorise as fire brigade action in response to a critical situation. No one would deny the situation is critical. It is pathetic, certainly in the north inner city, where I live, to see the victims of drug addiction, wandering around, confused, unable to sustain themselves properly, causing difficulties for other people and so on. It is tragic for the families to watch this. It is awful when one considers the level of mortality involved, either through over-dosing or infection with AIDS and similar diseases. Just as in the case of Ms Susie Long, a two-tier health service is being exposed. Where that woman was sentenced to death for the crime of being poor, in the same way, as I am sure the Minister of State will agree, the vast majority of casualties from drugs are from clearly defined social categories and postal districts in Dublin. This does not mean there is not drug use and addiction among the professional and middle classes, but they simply are in a position to access either the drugs that sustain them in pure form, or rehabilitation. The fact that here again, it is the most vulnerable elements of society that are involved needs to be looked at.
I know it is normal for the authorities to trumpet their successes as regards drugs seizures. That is complete nonsense, however. The Minister of State said the level of drug seizures by the Garda was one of the main achievements. He said customer service was well in excess of the targets set out in the strategy and included a number of significant operations which were itemised. However, a comparative figure indicating the amount of drugs actually seized and destroyed relative to the estimated level of drugs imports as a whole is necessary to understand the situation fully. I understand the seizure figure is only about 5% to 10%, which is certainly extremely small. That has virtually no impact except to occasionally create a type of shortage in the market. I shall return to this because ultimately it is a question of marketplace economics. That does not distress the drug barons because it just puts their profits up. Therefore it is largely a cosmetic exercise.
This is an unpopular thing to say, dangerous and difficult politically, but I believe it to be true. It is time we open a debate as to whether certain drugs, how many or even if drugs should be legalised. I happen to believe they should be and that this is necessary. It is the only way to defeat the criminal elements because what is driving them is the financial incentive. The only way to stop them is to destroy the financial incentive. I have some support in this. I said this many years ago in this House and the Minister for Health at the time, Deputy John O'Connell, not only agreed with me but went further. He was not only Minister for Health, he was also a doctor. Another informed commentator, Mr. Gay Byrne, who takes a judicious view of matters, has said that at least this should be opened up for debate. Rather than just listing fire brigade actions we should look fundamentally at the roots of this problem. The Minister of State should appreciate that a very senior policeman in Britain, the Chief Superintendent of Cheshire, has indicated that this is also his belief.
The Minister of State may recall, as I do, that some years ago a courageous Roman Catholic priest made heroin, not just clean needles, available in the crypt of his church in Rotterdam. The levels of crime dropped very repidly by 75% in that area. A similar experiment was tried in Britain but was closed down after diplomatic representations through the American Embassy. That was the most fraudulently hypocritical action from a government that has consistently, certainly from the time of the Korean war, employed drugs as a strategic instrument. Even when the Americans were funding the Contras in Nicaragua, they used covert operations to acquire and sell drugs so that they could pay for arms. What is going on is shameless. The country where one hears the loudest demands for the war on drugs, just as for the war on terrorism, is the United States, yet it has the single most critical drugs problem in the world. If they cannot win it, what makes us think we can? We can offer palliative measures and I salute the Minister of State in doing this. I am glad he has secured an increase in his budget, and he is a thoroughly decent, principled and well-motivated man. However, we must look at the most radical approach to this problem, which might include the legalisation, registration, classification and quality control of drugs.

The reason I say this is that it would cut out the financial incentive because one would undercut the drugs barons who would find it very difficult. I know it has been said that they would smuggle them like they smuggle cigarettes. The only reason they are able to smuggle cigarettes is that they are so highly priced. If they were not so highly priced, then it would not be a problem. In addition, one would have quality control and would not have the spate of accidental overdoses by addicts which are caused by the fact that they can never tell the strength of what they buy on the streets or the degree of its contamination. I could not give a figure and would only be pulling one out of the air but there would be a massive decrease in the levels of crime.
Recently, I was at a very fine play written by a tenant of my house. I was glad to see Anne Enright win the Man Booker prize. She was in my attic while Sebastian Barry was in the basement. It was a most literary house with me sandwiched in the middle. As far as I know, I do not think there was any massive drug taking among any of us. However, Sebastian has just written a play, "The Pride of Parnell Street", which has been produced in the Dublin Theatre Festival. It is the story of a drug addict and that man explains it very interestingly. Friends of mine said they would not go to that play to see those gougers, "skangers" and blackguards being made heroes. The character in the play did not want to engage in criminal activity but he robbed and attacked old ladies because of his desperation to get access to drugs.
There is a number of reasons for considering this. I am opening this up because the Seanad is the place in which to do so as it is, very largely, a theoretical debate. I do not for one minute suggest that Dublin should become a drugs haven or area or that Ireland alone should relax its legislation. This will have to be done at least on a Europe-wide level and perhaps a global one.
The Minister of State travels quite a bit and has possibly been through Singapore airport. If he has, he will have seen the signs. One is executed - one's life is terminated - for bringing small amounts of drugs through that airport, yet people regularly do so. Why? If that does not stop them, does one believe our puny laws will do so? I do not believe they will.
It is time to open up this debate. This must be tackled on a global basis and one of the ways we can prepare ourselves for it is to have this kind of debate. There is an assumption that this behaviour of drug taking has always been seen as criminal activity, but that is not the case. It was only in the early 20th century that drug taking became criminal. Establishment figures took drugs. One could go into one's chemist to get them. One could practically get them in one's hotel.
A difficulty which needs to be teased out is the most dangerous drugs, for example, the drugs that alter behaviour in an unforeseeable way. Crack cocaine is one such drug. I have been attacked by somebody high as a kite on crack cocaine. I do not believe they knew what they were doing and that is the problem. One moves from what I call the naturally occurring organic drugs, which are made from plants by a fairly unsophisticated process, to the pharmaceutically derived drugs. There are clever chemists everywhere who manufacture such drugs whose effect on the human brain is unpredictable. That is something which calls into question some elements of my argument, so I am not saying I have the answers. Sadly, however, the Government's strategy does not have the answers either.
Simply by criminalising drugs, one is driving them underground and not affecting the substantial level of imports. One should look at our skimpy Naval Service which, while comprising wonderful people, does not have the resources in terms of manpower, boats and so on. The shoreline in County Cork is a smuggler's paradise.
I thank the Acting Chairman for his indulgence and the Minister of State. I look forward to the debate but would be lacking in my duty if, as I have always done, did not say what I thought and what I thought was in the best interests of the nation whatever about the possible impact on my voters if they ever read this, which may not be entirely positive. I know some of the mothers of Ireland would not agree because it is very tragic to see a son or a daughter on drugs. I salute the families and, in particular, that wonderful mother whose name I cannot remember and whose daughter appeared in the newspapers with her arm so desperately scarred. The love of that mother supported the daughter until she managed to get herself into a programme. I salute these people but is it not better to have drugs regulated and the dose and the purity known?

Order of Business - 17th October 2007

Order of Business - 17th October 2007
Senator David Norris: I recognise that time is short but when I came into this House there were no such restrictions on speaking time and such restrictions weaken the democratic nature of our Parliament. This is a great mistake and time allowed should be extended. These issues of a guillotine on speaking time during the passage of Bills is not a good practice-----

An Cathaoirleach: I remind the Senator that the Committee on Procedure and Privilege of the House has made a decision regarding speaking time and it was agreed.

Senator David Norris: I understand, and I do not wish to waste the time of the House. I will put down another amendment as the last time I did so I obtained an extension of ten minutes.
I join with those who celebrate the nomination of Archbishop Brady to the College of Cardinals. This country has made a disproportionate contribution to the Roman Catholic Church over many centuries and it is appropriate this is recognised in the same way as Ireland has made a disproportionate contribution to the world of literature. As a Trinity representative, I am extremely glad that one of our graduates, whom I remember in the English department, has won the Man Booker award. Anne Enright is a wonderful, witty, unpretentious person and writes brilliantly.

I ask for a debate on the question of confidentiality. I am very worried, as other

people must be, by revelations that a civil servant passed on information to his

brother who used it for burglaries and other criminal activity. The civil servant in

question stated in evidence that he had browsed through other people's records

and that this was a common practice in the Civil Service.

If it is a common practice in the Civil Service for people to look up, talk about and use in a malign way these records something should be done about it under the Data Protection Act.
I am glad the matter of Susie Long was raised. I raised the matter a number of months ago and stated then as I do now that this was a woman sentenced to death for the crime of poverty. Professor John Crown spoke on the wireless today. He should come before the Joint Committee on Health and Children to give his ideas from the coalface on how we can deliver an efficient health service to our people.
I am also glad the methadone issue was raised. I understand my colleague, Senator Ross, raised the matter of pharmacists on an adjournment debate. This is critical and involves vulnerable people who will find it difficult to access the drugs. The Health Service Executive has put forward an ad hoc scheme. The people involved have extreme difficulty handling the scheme and may well resort to street crime. This is grossly irresponsible and it is mean-minded to hit the most vulnerable, weak and confused elements of society and we will have the inevitable backwash on ordinary citizens.

Motion on Burma - 11th October 2007

Motion on Burma – 11th October 2007

Senator David Norris: I am glad to welcome
the Minister of State to the House. I know of his
interest in this matter. I commend the Minister
for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, for
his work in New York. Other European countries
have also played a positive role. The British
Prime Minister was very clear in this regard, as
were both the French President, Mr. Sarkozy, and
his Foreign Minister, Mr. Kouchner, who even
went so far as to suggest they would try to get the
French oil giant, Total, to pull out of Burma. I
am not sure such a move would be appropriate
because it would simply open the way for China
to further colonise the country.
This is a point that needs to be put on the
record. Burma is in fact an economic colony of
Beijing. China has the key, as demonstrated when
it vetoed the resolution at the UN Security
Council. The tragic situation in Burma highlights
clearly the truth of what President Ahmadinejad
told the United Nations, namely, that the entire
organisation still reflects the situation at the end
of the Second World War. If we want effective
work from the United Nations, we need to examine
the permanent membership of the Security
Council and the disproportionate power given to
permanent members by the use of the veto.
Burma is a very beautiful country, rich in
natural resources and with a gentle and lovely
people. It is ruled by a vicious and inward-looking
regime. While the present turmoil was sparked by
the enormous rise in commodity prices, the small
ruling elite was insulated from its impact and continues
to live in considerable luxury. The
members of the elite have not had experience of
the rest of the world and have not travelled or
been educated abroad and so on. However, they
are quite capable of inflicting serious damage
upon their own people.
This happened in 1998, when there was great
repression and at least 3,000 people were killed.
The difference between then and now is the
advance in technology. Whereas in 1988 the
regime was able to conceal the situation and the
outside world did not know until it was all over,
we now have contemporary reports. I followed
events in Burma on television and radio in
Cyprus. I saw in a newspaper blurred images,
taken on a mobile phone, of the bloodied faces
of monks. We also know of attacks on pagodas
and monasteries. The events in Burma could not
be concealed.
The murder of a Japanese tourist while taking
footage of the protests was disastrous for the Burmese
authorities and raises the question of
whether Japan, one of the main donors of assistance
to Burma, will cut off aid. The most
interesting aspect of the initial phase of the protests
was that they consisted exclusively of monks
and were entirely peaceful. A gentle revolution
led by monks who had made clear to civilians that
they should not get involved as it would mean
exposing themselves to danger was brutally
attacked. It was at that point that ordinary
members of the population became involved in
the protests to a significant degree.
Buddhist monks in Burma are representative
of the population because entering a monastery
for a period is almost a form of national service.
Virtually every young Burmese male becomes a
monk for a time before rejoining civilian life. The
question arises as to what are the feelings of soldiers
who may have experienced being a monk.
We have entered the end game for the Burmese
regime and while it may take a long time, the
skids are under the junta. I am glad that is the
case.
In terms of Buddhist culture, it was significant
that the monks refused to accept offerings from
members of the military. This is tantamount to
an excommunication of the government agencies.
The role of the Association of South East Asian
Nations, ASEAN, is significant because these
states have been mealy-mouthed previously. We
have listened to calls for constructive engagement
but this means sweet damn all. The economic
interests and vulnerabilities of these undemocratic
regimes mean they were unwilling to apply
pressure on the Burmese regime.
China is the key to this issue but I would not
hold my breath in that regard. I appeal to the
Government to apply greater diplomatic pressure
on the Chinese Government. The Chinese
ambassador should be told in unambiguous terms
that it is perfectly clear that China could have the
violence switched off tomorrow if it wished, given
its absolute control of what is an economic colony
of China.
A question also arises with regard to the attitude
of the West. Tragically — Senator Walsh
alluded to this point — while President Bush and
his wife may have said all the right things — their
comments were bang on — they are a busted
flush with no moral authority because the United
States is involved in the kidnap, torture and
bombing of civilians. Who are they to lecture the
Burmese regime? On the other hand, a small
country such as Ireland still has some moral authority,
despite the ongoing use of Shannon Airport
for military purposes. Complaints emanating
from the United States about the undemocratic
nature of the regime are justified but what about
Palestine where a government returned in a
proper election has been subverted? A similar
process took place in Algeria. In other words,
from the point of view of the West, democracy
only works when it produces the result we want.
This approach leaves our moral authority elided.
Senators should start a debate on whether it is
appropriate to support holding the Olympic
Games in Beijing in the light of the consistent and
gross violation of human rights by the Chinese
authorities in Burma and Tibet. I say this despite
hearing Jung Chang, the author of Wild Swans,
in a discussion of her interesting and analytical
biography of Mao Tse-tung on the wireless in
recent days, state the staging of the Olympic
Games in China has put pressure on the authorities
to open up a little. She also stated,
however, that it would be no harm to send the
Chinese authorities a warning. If we are to stand
in solidarity with the people of Burma, we must
raise these issues with China because we only
have one chance to use the Olympic Games for
this purpose. Now is the time to demand that
China take real, constructive action on Burma or
face the prospect of the debate heating up and
protests taking place against the Olympic Games.
I thank Senator Cummins for his kind words
but the real praise should be directed towards the
Burma action group.

Order of Business - 11th October 2007

Order of Business – 11th October 2007
Senator David Norris: I second the non-contentious
proposal by my colleague, Senator O’Toole,
for a change to the Order of Business. I commend
Mr. Justice Carney. I listened to the broadcast
this morning and read the text of his speech. I
thought it was sensitive, measured and judicious.
It raised a number of extremely important points
that we should debate. It was the right forum. It
was a lecture and he held off on speaking last
year because of the sensitive nature of the case.
It took courage to do that because of the public
sympathy for the suffering of the families
involved but he made the point that because of
the unscripted nature of the remarks at the end
of that statement, it had a serious negative impact
on the intention of his judgment which was to
permit the other young man, Wayne
O’Donoghue, to look towards the reconstruction
of a shattered life.
He also made points, which were well made,
about the intervention of the media, particularly
about the its sensational elements. The Government
appears to wish to reintroduce the Defamation
Bill and the Privacy Bill is on the Order
Paper. A press ombudsman has been appointed.
We have a press council, even though the Bill was
discarded. Would the existence of the press
ombudsman or the press council have stopped
that? I do not believe so.
I agree with Senator Fitzgerald about the
situation regarding the health service and ask for
a debate on that. I, too, am aware of the case of
the stroke victim she mentioned. Another case of
a stroke victim, who has been reduced from a full
regime of physiotherapy to three hours, been
drawn to my attention. On the morning this man
was to be transferred to a nursing home, the
family were told, just as they were expecting the
ambulance to take him, that it would not happen
because the funding had been withdrawn. It is
unconscionable that Government spokespersons
maintain there is no impact on patients. I cannot
think of a more catastrophic impact than that.

Motion on Access to Education - 10th October 2007

Motion on Access to Education – 10th October 2007

Senator David Norris: I congratulate the
Labour Party on tabling this motion that is at
least partly in response to the critical situation
that existed in Balbriggan. I notice this motion is
causing the usual Wednesday evening ping-pong
match whereby the Opposition criticises the
Government for its failures and the Government
amends the motion noting and welcoming various
achievements. I think this debate should be taken
more seriously without points scoring.
The Minister for Education and Science,
Deputy Mary Hanafin, is one of the best Ministers
in this Government but that does not mean
her Department is immune from criticism and she
would not expect that to be the case. A critical
situation was raised on “Questions and Answers”
in recent weeks and a fine doctor stated clearly
that she was aware, in the area of her general
practice, of children turned away from a primary
school because they did not have a baptismal certificate.
This is a significant problem that must
be addressed.
The fact that there is a crisis led the Minister
to call in Educate Together, an excellent group,
and the chief executive said there is a catastrophic
failure in the provision of school places for rapidly
developing housing areas. This is not partisan,
party political view but rather one from the
coalface from an expert the Minister relied on to
rectify the situation. How did this situation arise?
We live in a rapidly developing society and a
very good article on this topic was written by Dr.
Garret FitzGerald. He points out that 60% of
residents of the area in which I live are not Irish
but mostly eastern European and Asian. A problem
exists regarding the command of the English
language possessed by some immigrants and this
is an area the Government must address immediately.
In the aforementioned school situations,
the preponderance of non-Irish people will inevitably
pull back other students, through no fault of
their own but through a lack of linguistic skills.
This is a problem that may lead to tension. Again,
how did this situation arise?
It is clear the information on which forward
planning should be based was available within the
Department. Dr. FitzGerald points out that
“from each census the necessary data on the
numbers aged naught to four in each of the 320
different areas of Dublin and in well over 3,500
other parts of the country have been available”.
If one adds this to details relating to housing
numbers, approvals and so on available from
county councils and data relating to people’s
nationalities and ethnic origins, it is clear the
information exists. However, it was inert and was
not acted upon and this constitutes failure.
Another significant problem is the baptismal
test. I am a churchgoing member of the Church
of Ireland and am not antagonistic towards
religion but I think the exemption from the
Equality Act sought by all churches, not just the
Roman Catholic Church, presents a significant
problem. This problem exists because of the lack
of confidence each church has in the ethos it
holds. I believe a real religious faith can be fostered
in the home and that school is a place for
giving facts. This is why I feel Educate Together
is such an excellent system. It is not militantly
atheistic. It provides for the religious needs of the
children and the requirements of parents.
It is very dangerous that churches should be
exempt from equality legislation. Christianity is
supposed to be about equality, the State is supposed
to treat all the children of the nation
equally, yet we exempt churches from such
notions. I raised this matter previously and the
Government should re-examine such exemptions
because they allow churches, using State money,
to fire teachers because of their lifestyles and a
perceived conflict with school ethos.
The State is comfortable with the lack of separation
of church and state and one need only
examine the case of Louise O’Keeffe, who sued
the State because she was sexually molested, for
evidence of this. She was landed with the costs of
the case because the State neatly passed responsibility
to the church. This is unfair and clearly indicates
the need for the separation of church and
state.
I note the Roman Catholic hierarchy has indicated
it no longer wants complete control of this
area of education and is preparing an exit strategy
of some kind. It is important we know the motivation
for this and how it will be accomplished in
order that we can have proper, integrated
education.

Statements on Shannon Airport - 10th October 2007

Statements on Shannon Airport – 10th October 2007
Senator David Norris: I am grateful to my colleagues
for allowing me some time to speak on
this issue. This was a ruthless executive decision
taken in a business context. From the parameters
of one perspective, this was a correct decision
because the guidelines were entirely economic
and directors might have been found to have
been neglectful of their responsibilities were they
to fail to make the greatest possible profit.
However, as the route was already profitable, this
was not a necessary decision.
Senator Ellis was chairman of the Oireachtas
Joint Committee on Transport on which I served
and this was one reason I spoke and voted against
the privatisation of Aer Lingus. One hears much
about privatisation and competition and I completely
disagree with my distinguished colleague,
Senator Ross, when he speaks about Ryanair and
Aer Lingus. While this action was meant to
produce competition, the first thing to happen
was that Michael O’Leary tried to use Ryanair to
gobble up Aer Lingus and establish a monopoly.
We would have lost a State monopoly only to
gain a monopoly whose only interests were greed
and the wealth of a small number of individuals.
This was also a political decision and the
Government undoubtedly knew about it.
Senator Alan Kelly: Hear, hear.
Senator David Norris: This was a ready-up
because it fitted in with the Government’s North-
South co-operation policy. Hence, this was a political
decision.
One should contrast the attitude adopted by
the Government on this issue, in which it shafted
the people of Shannon and Aer Lingus, to its
manoeuvrings when Members were in the process
of establishing a committee to investigate the ren365
Shannon Airport: 10 October 2007. Statements 366
dition flights that passed through Shannon Airport
and the lies that were then told in this
regard. The Government was prepared then to
gallop in at the behest of a strong Shannon lobby
for nakedly political reasons.
This issue has two elements. I refer to the business
element whereby one can justify what was
done in terms of harsh competitive realities.
However, I do not, because there should be a
social dimension. The only way to have one is by
retaining Aer Lingus in public control, which is
the reason I voted against the privatisation. All
the matters Members raised then are now coming
home to roost.

Order of Business - 10th October 2007

Order of Business - 10th October 2007
Senator David Norris: I support my colleague,
Senator Bacik, in her call for a debate on abortion.
This is a complex and difficult issue and
people on both sides have strongly held views. I
raised the matter towards the end of the last
Seanad in the light of a very dignified letter written
by a woman who was not an extreme person.
She was not even particularly liberal, as far as I
know, but she wrote as an ordinary Irish citizen
in the light of the impact her anencephalic pregnancy
would have on her family.
We have betrayed people by long-fingering this
debate. It is significant that a senior Anglican
cleric has reproached us, as legislators, for our
lack of courage. This is the Chamber
in which to address these kinds of
issues because we have a history of
dealing with complicated, divisive and emotive
issues in a calm and rational way, although there
are divided opinions.
I agree with Senator Alex White in requesting
the Ta´ naiste and Minister for Finance to come
into the House, not specifically to deal with the
issue he raised but instead to deal with an issue
that impacts on many young people in particular,
that is, the sub-prime mortgage issue. People are
finding themselves in a position of negative
equity. During the week there were 39 cases of
court action to gain possession of houses, which
is very worrying.
We also ought to take a stand about radio
advertisements marketing these services, where,
for example, there is a positive statement about
taking a mortgage including consolidating one’s
credit card debts, but then not letting people
know that by so doing they are moving from a
position of unsecured debt into one of secured
debt and they could lose their house over their
credit card debt, which is intolerable. In addition,
the warning at the end they are statutorily
required to provide is gabbled at an ungodly rate
nobody could understand and is the voice-over
equivalent of the notorious small print in
contracts.
I suggest the Leader find time for a debate on
Windscale. New information has now come to
light that the explosion in 1958 was significantly
worse. We know there are clusters of Down’s syndrome
births, still births, etc., in the area of Dundalk
and the east coast. We also know that there
was significant low-scale pollution before, during
and after that accident through the smokestacks
at Windscale. It is a matter we should monitor
through this House.

Adjournment Debate - 4th October 2007

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. He may not be directly familiar with this appalling case which I raised in the previous session. It constitutes a grave injustice and a violation of the principle of freedom of association, among other freedoms, and the right to a good name. It concerns a young man who is directly and personally known to me. He is a man of good standing and is a very gentle person. He came to this country in July 2001 and was accepted as a refugee. His brother was accepted as a refugee and is now a citizen and married with children. The man is an architect by profession and has no criminal record, nor has he carried out any misdeed whatever. I have questioned him about this and he has urged me to push this case to the limit. He wants to know why he is being denied fair and decent treatment.
On being granted asylum status, the man applied for naturalisation as an Irish citizen and this application was turned down. In the letter sent to him in this regard, he was told he could appeal but that he must include in his appeal the grounds for his application being refused in the first place. When he wrote to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, he was denied that information. This is completely grotesque and what one would expect in a police state. It is simply unacceptable in a modern European democracy. I spoke to various officials and got the runaround myself on a number of occasions. I wrote letters and they were not answered efficiently. The man in question tried to employ the facilities of the Freedom of Information Act and this again was refused.
On the last occasion I raised this matter, the then Minister said the process would be re-examined. That is not good enough because it effectively penalises the person under review by making him or her wait longer with an indeterminate outcome. I was told by the former Minister that I did not want to know about this and that it was a security matter. I know all about these security matters and how they are dealt with. My telephone was tapped 25 years ago and when I contacted Senator Mary Robinson to ask her to raise the matter, she was told it was a security matter and that there was no way in which I could establish the reasons my telephone was tapped or even get an acknowledgement from the Government that it was tapped. I was innocent of any crime and of blameless record and that is why I feel so strongly about this matter.
What is the record? I want the person I represent to be given the opportunity to answer whatever baseless and unfounded charges are being made against him, which, in fairness and decency, he is entitled to do in a democracy. I would like to know the person who put them on the record. I would like to know what faceless pimp or spy put something down about this man. Perhaps it was done because he may be a Muslim. Perhaps he attends a mosque or perhaps he was photographed by some nark in a group. Does the Minister of State remember what happened to the former Minister, Deputy James McDaid, when he was photographed at the funeral of a neighbour’s child who happened to be in the IRA? Was this a good day for Ireland? Are we to return to guilt by attainder, guilt by association or the star chamber?
I am advising the man in question and will help him in every way I can in anticipation of an unsatisfactory reply once again from a cowardly Government. I will advise him to take a judicial review. It is insupportable that somebody should have a black mark put against his name without explanation and without being allowed to know why or to defend himself.
I would not push this case so vigorously if the person in question were not known to me directly and personally. I want to know what has been said about him and who has said it. If we do not receive these answers, none of us is safe in this country. We will continue to push this matter and demand a reply. The very fact the man is encouraging me to demand the information is a clear indication of his complete innocence of any guilt, even by association, in this matter.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Jimmy Devins): This is the first time I have had the opportunity to address this House. I congratulate the Cathaoirleach on his appointment.

I thank Senator Norris for raising this matter. I am replying on behalf of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who is occupied in the other Chamber.
It is understood that this matter was the subject of the Seanad Adjournment debate on 26 April last and that the Senator was provided with a comprehensive response at the time, including an account of the circumstances surrounding the refusal of the applicant’s original application for naturalisation. In reaching a decision to refuse that application, the Minister exercised the absolute discretion as provided by the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Acts. The position remains as stated in the original reply. The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, as amended, provides that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform may, in his absolute discretion, grant an application for a certificate of naturalisation provided certain statutory conditions are fulfilled. Those 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, either before a judge of the District Court in open court or in such a manner as the Minister, for special reasons, allows, a declaration in the prescribed manner of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State.
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 purpose of study and periods granted for the purpose of seeking recognition as a refugee within the meaning of the Refugee Act 1996.
The granting of Irish citizenship through naturalisation is an honour and applications must be processed in a way that preserves the necessary checks and balances to ensure it 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 return of the forms and accompanying documentation to the applicants with an explanation of the problems 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 be also necessary. Since this procedure was introduced on 1 April 2005, more than 1,500 applicants who applied after 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 reapply when they have the required residency.
The next stage of the process involves assessing the financial status of applicants - their ability to support themselves in the State - and may involve making inquiries with the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Inquiries are also made with the Garda Síochána to ascertain if the applicant can be deemed to be of good character. Circumstances in individual cases may mean such cases require a greater level of investigation than others. When the various inquiries have been completed, the file is referred for a decision to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Minister is satisfied that these procedures, which have been developed and refined over a number of years, are necessary to maintain the integrity of the naturalisation process. Senator Norris will appreciate that the processes can, by their very nature, take some time to complete.
The person referred to by the Senator arrived in the State on 27 July 2001. He applied for asylum on 30 July of that year, but his application was refused by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner on 12 April 2002. This decision was set aside by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal on appeal, however, and on 19 February 2003 the person was declared a refugee under section 17 of the Refugee Act 1996, as amended. On 24 October 2004, he applied for the granting of a certificate of naturalisation. After the application was considered under the provisions of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Acts 1956 and 1986, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform decided on 8 March 2006 not to grant naturalisation. A copy of the submission prepared by officials from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform at the time was forwarded to the applicant for his information. As I said at the outset, in reaching that decision the Minister exercised the absolute discretion made available to him by the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Acts, which do not provide for a formal process of appeal of a decision to refuse naturalisation. However, 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.

Senator David Norris: They refused that too.

Deputy Jimmy Devins: The Minister understands that the applicant submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act for any records about this matter held by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. 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 that the Minister’s decision was based on incorrect or incomplete information, he or she can seek a review of that decision. The applicant was also informed that he can reapply for the granting of a certificate of naturalisation at any time. The Minister understands that a second application was lodged in the Department’s citizenship section on 23 March 2006. That section is processing applications that were made in the first half of 2005. Applications are dealt with in chronological order because that is deemed to be the fairest way of treating all applicants. Therefore, there is no question of any prevarication on the part of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in dealing with this application. As I have previously advised, the person in question can expect to receive a decision on his case in the latter half of next year.

Senator David Norris: It is customary to thank Ministers and ask them some questions at this point. I know the Minister of State, whom I congratulate on his appointment, is a decent man. His response was a disgraceful load of old blather. He might as well have read the telephone directory into the record. There was absolutely nothing in it other than a rehash of rubbish about technical ways of doing this, that and the other. It is a complete farrago of nonsense and a total injustice. The degree of the Department’s respect for the security of the man in question is indicated by the appearance of his name, address and telephone number in the Minister of State’s script, which was handed out widely all over this Chamber. I want the Minister of State to take this lapse very seriously, because under no circumstances should his name have been published in such a manner. This is an example of the respect for security associated with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
The Minister of State referred to the Garda National Immigration Bureau. Is that from where the trouble is coming? Who is responsible? The questions I raised have not been answered. What accusation was made against the man whose case I have raised? The Minister of State said the man can appeal the decision that was taken, which is true. However, he would have to cite the reasons for refusal, which he has not been given. The Minister of State also mentioned the Freedom of Information Act, but the man in question has been refused under that as well. There is no democratic accountability whatever in this instance. I want the Minister of State to raise this issue with the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, so that it does not end here.
There has been prevarication in this case. The entire piece of nonsense that has been read into the record this evening is nothing other than prevarication. As someone who used to teach English, I know what the word “prevarication” means. I can recognise prevarication. This is nothing other than prevarication - there is nothing else in it. Will the Minister of State bring back the message to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform that the man in this instance is seeking a review of the decision? I am demanding that review on his behalf. It is a sad day for this country when people who fought and died for freedom are the subject of such an utter and contemptible violation of democratic accountability.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I understand that the person’s name will not be published in the transcript of the proceedings of the House. The Minister of State’s response will be on the record.

Senator David Norris: That dozens of copies of the Minister of State’s response are floating around this Chamber - I do not blame the staff of the House for that - is an indication of the nonsense that is being spoken about security. The man in question is supposed to be a security risk - what rubbish.

Climate Protection Bill 200 7- Order for Second Stage - 4th October 2007.

Climate Protection Bill 2007 - Second Stage Debate

I hope there is courage not just on these benches but also on the Government benches to tackle this important matter. I congratulate Senator Bacik on producing this Bill. I am delighted she has been elected a Member. She has justified my hopes in her by hitting the ground running, speaking on the Order of Business at the first sitting, putting a Bill down and speaking on the Adjournment.
I also greatly welcome Senator Boyle’s elevation to the House. He said there is the possibility of some arrangement in taking this Bill. I hope it will not be amended, voted down or laid to rest on the Order Paper. Will the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government give a firm commitment by indicating dates for the Bill’s passage? Can we have this before Christmas? It is good all sides of the House are prepared to accept legislation. That is good democratic co-operative Government for which this House was intended. I have spoken to Senator Bacik and the primus inter pares, Senator O’Toole, and we will be putting down legislation on domestic partnership drafted by myself and Senator Bacik before she was elected. I hope it will be met with an equal welcome.
I congratulate Senator Bacik on the Climate Control Bill because of its simplicity, clarity and directness. It provides the definitions by what is meant by particular gasses, sets targets and establishes a strategy. It also sets out the action to be taken in case these targets are not met, proposing a commission to examine the reasons. It is not just a knee-jerk reaction; it addresses these issues to ensure such a transgression will not recur.
Climate change is the single most significant event on this planet. The planet is like an aircraft on which we are all passengers, all with an equal investment and interest in it arriving at its destination safely. However, there is a clear and present danger that it might not. On board this aircraft there are lunatic hijackers who want to take it over for their own reasons. They are the corporations and governments, such as the US President, Bush, and the German Government, that will not acknowledge the problem of climate change. I was appalled that Chinese-made environmentally friendly and low-energy consuming lightbulbs were prevented from being imported into the EU by the German Government in order to protect its domestic industry. That selfish attitude is a disgrace to the EU and should be stopped.
On our aircraft there is also the equivalent of those afflicted by air rage, the climate-change deniers. They are lunatics. Last summer, I took the trouble to accept an invitation - unfinanced - from the Norwegian foreign ministry to visit the Arctic to see the effects of climate change. It is bloody frightening. In the past year, an area of permanent sea ice the size of the state of Texas has disappeared from the Arctic forever. Today’s weather is very humid. I am 63 years of age and we have never had humidity like this before in Ireland. We must recognise our climate is changing.
I put down a motion on the Order Paper which was gazumped by the viper in my bosom, Senator Bacik, who brilliantly got her Bill taken. My motion called on Seanad Éireann to take note of the Environmental Protection Agency’s report, Key Meteorological Indicators of Climate Change in Ireland. The report stated a stronger warming trend was apparent in Ireland and globally in the 1930s and 1940s.

The 1990s has been the warmest decade in the Irish instrumental record. This is consistent with experience in the UK. I have mentioned the hot days, humidity and so on. A hot day actually has a scientific meaning. It is defined as one where the mean daily temperature exceeds 14° centigrade, where a “cold day” has a mean below 0° centigrade. A clear indication of a trend exists in both these parameters as established by scientific facts.
In midland locations such as Birr and Kilkenny, the number of cold days has halved over the past five decades while the number of hot days has roughly doubled. This is Ireland, which brings matters home to roost. Our own small island is noticeably and directly affected. My colleague and friend, Senator Joe O’Toole, referred humorously to the butterflies in the Amazon. That struck a little echo in my mind because butterflies are very important. There is something in this report I want to draw to the Minister’s attention because it might, perhaps, be done without enormous investment. We need a comprehensive butterfly survey because we are on the margin of the population probably for a very considerable number of butterflies. They have become a very sensitive indicator that we can use to gauge the extent of climate. We need not denigrate the humble butterfly.
I mentioned the second major cause. Perhaps not everyone in the Chamber will agree, but I believe this is the elephant in the room, namely, the world population explosion. Since I did my leaving certificate and entered Trinity College, the population on this planet has doubled. This cannot happen without serious consequences. This factor lies behind not only a significant proportion of the global warming effects but also behind the resource wars, the tensions between nations and the destruction of the Amazon rain forest. Let us at some stage have a really serious debate on population change. There is not a world leader with the moral courage to raise this issue, especially in the religious sphere. Recently the Pope was lecturing the Austrians for not having enough children. Every time I hear of a decline in a European country’s population I get down on my knees and thank Almighty God because we do more damage to the environment than the unfortunate Chinese, Indians and all the rest.
It has already been mentioned that Ireland is the fifth most polluting country in the European Union, where “business as usual” has been raised as a phrase. Seven years ago, the Government Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, said “business as usual” was not an option for Ireland, and that is true.
I shall end on a practical point. I have passed a letter to the Minister which came into my possession via a very interesting friend in Cyprus. She is a distinguished international doctor. Her partner is a distinguished scientist and businessman and they have come up with something in which I believe the Government should take an interest. It is an ignition system that uses high-frequency technology in combination with rail injection systems. It can be applied to high pressure ignition, combustive, diesel and gasoline engines. It is a remarkable invention which does not suit all the big industrial conglomerates and therefore needs some degree of Government sponsorship and assistance.
I ask the Minister to examine the letter to see whether there is something in it that might benefit this country if he went into partnership with the people who are now developing it, namely, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. I am not suggesting the Government goes into business but rather saying if we are serious about reducing carbon emissions through the internal combustion engine, let us look at this technology. The international combines are very nervous of it because it might put some of them out of business, but it might also substantially reduce carbon emissions from motor vehicles. I remind the Minister of this because he has admitted to me that he is almost as scatty-minded as I am and he might forget. I will drop him a note and I request him to take a look at this proposal.

Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Bill 2007 - Committee Stage - 4th October 2007

Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Bill 2007: Committee Stage.

Could I help Senator Ross in his difficulty because I understand it very well? The word “shall” is not being accepted and the word “may” is being left. It is not really the Leas-Chathaoirleach’s ruling. He has been got at-----

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: It is the Cathaoirleach’s ruling.

Senator David Norris: -----by the Government on this and it means it has a leg out. It may not, and probably will not, do it. That is the difference between the words “may” and “shall”. We all know that. It has nothing to do with creating a charge.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: It involves a potential charge on the Revenue.

Deputy Michael Ahern: I ask Senator Norris to withdraw the accusation that the Chair was got at. The Government did not discuss this matter with the Chair.

Senator David Norris: I will withdraw the suggestion that the Chair was interfered with malevolently but there is no doubt there is Government influence.

Senator Shane Ross: The Leas-Chathaoirleach said it is a long-standing rule. I am a long-standing Member and I do not recall the rule, so it must be very long-standing. Perhaps the Minister of State - I do not expect the Leas-Chathaoirleach to do so because he is bound by the ruling - or someone could explain how one word means a charge on the Revenue while the other one does not. It is utterly ridiculous. This is undoubtedly going to be a charge on the Revenue whatever happens. It is meant to be a charge on the Revenue.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I support Senators Alex White, Ross and Norris. I raised this matter on Second Stage and suggested it would be preferable to insert the word “shall” rather than the word “may” because leaving the word “may” implies a discretion which, as the Minister of State said, we clearly do not have since we are in breach of European law. Like the other Senators, I do not see the problem with this amendment and I support it.

Senator David Norris: We have been given a history lesson and told this is a long-standing practice. The Government has a long-standing commitment to avoiding implementing this scheme. The only reason it is introducing measures at this stage is that it has been found in breach of European law, as the Minister of State said. It did not implement the public lending right, PLR, scheme in the past.

Senator David Norris: I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following subsection:

“(4) The Scheme should be overseen by a board or monitoring authority whose members shall include representatives from the Irish Writers Union and the Irish Copyright Licensing Agency.”.
In a way this is an absurdity because we are now talking about moneys and situations which may not exist at all. My amendment puts in place a situation where there should be a board or monitoring authority whose members shall include members of Irish Writers Union and the Irish Copyright Licensing Agency. If the word “may” means the Government is not going to do anything - the track record suggests this is the case - then there will be nothing for the board to oversee. That also affects amendment No. 5.
Amendment No. 5 is about the disbursal of moneys from the scheme. It is an attempt to follow what I am informed is best European practice in terms of the disbursal of moneys and it ensures not more than 10% of the moneys accruing shall be spent on administration. This is an admirable practice. The only charities I support in terms of famine relief and so on have this provision and state “not more than 10%” while some state “not more than 5%”. The distinguished gentlemen who briefed me on this matter told me that in the case of the United Kingdom, a jurisdiction we frequently follow in terms of legislation, the sums spent on administration are less. I urge the Government to accept these amendments.
It is unfortunate that these amendments now become hypothetical because of the Government’s refusal to accept the word “shall” instead of the word “may”. In one sense, one could say Occam’s razor comes into action as a philosophical principle and that it is absurd to discuss the hypothetical disposition of non-existent moneys. The moneys do not exist and if we accept the word “may” in its most negative construction instead of the word “shall”, they never will. We are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
Will the Minister of State clearly tell me that he intends to fulfil the spirit of our European undertakings and our requirement to comply with European directives and that he will establish this scheme? Will he give a commitment to establish such a scheme? Will he assure the House the Cathaoirleach’s decision, as the Leas-Chathaoirleach said, is technical and is simply because it might create a charge on the Exchequer? Will he give a commitment to the House to implement the scheme? Will he address the substance of the two amendments? Otherwise they become a complete nonsense.
On amendment No. 4, if one invokes the principle of subsidiarity, which is one of the great European catchcries, it is important that the bodies most directly concerned with this area have an advisory or monitoring role. Surely it is appropriate that the Irish Writers Union, which represents the authors who will benefit from the scheme, is represented. What is the point in having an Irish Copyright Licensing Agency if it is not included in this very important section of the legislation? It is vital to the moral integrity of the scheme that the money allocated find its way to the authors and not be swallowed up in administration.
Let me explain to the Minister of State that he was delayed in the anteroom because we were at it hammer and tongs in the House debating the Health Service Executive. A point was made by Members throughout the House, including the honourable gentleman who so valiantly represents the Government on this side of the House, that a disproportionate amount of the health budget is wasted on the administration of the executive itself. No Member wants this to be the case in respect of the proposed scheme.
The United Kingdom has implemented a similar scheme fully and appropriately under European regulations and it represents a pretty good model. In 2006 and 2007, the scheme received £7.65 million in grants-in-aid, of which £6.81 million was distributed to authors. This is the way it should be. We must ensure not more than 10% is spent on administration. Will the Minister of State, in his reply, give an undertaking that this scheme will be implemented? That will satisfy my distinguished colleague, Senator Ross, and also Senator Bacik. If the scheme is not implemented, it will be a farce and there will be no point whatever in our continuing to press these amendments. They will be in the land of utopian imagination.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Senator David Norris: As long as it does not cause a charge on the Exchequer, we welcome him. If it does, it is illegal and we cannot welcome the delegates, except in our hearts.

In page 6, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following subsection:

“(4) The Scheme should be overseen by a board or monitoring authority whose members shall include representatives from the Irish Writers Union and the Irish Copyright Licensing Agency.”.

-(Senator David Norris)
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Deputy Michael Ahern): On Senator Norris’s question on whether the scheme will be implemented, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is putting through the legislation and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is responsible for the operation of the scheme. It is preparing regulations at present and intends the scheme to be in operation from January 2009.

Senator Alex White: Does it?

Deputy Michael Ahern: That is its intention and it is our intention that it will operable-----

Senator David Norris: I take that as a qualified “Yes”.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Will the Senators allow the Minister of State to finish?

Deputy Michael Ahern: On amendment No. 4, it is the intention of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to establish an advisory committee representing all stakeholders involved, including authors, editors and illustrators, to advise on policy and the operation of the scheme. This undertaking has already been made publicly by the Minister. The Minister contends there is a need to maintain flexibility with regard to participation in that committee. As experience shows, particular organisations often change over time and it would not be appropriate to be so prescriptive in primary legislation as the amendment proposes. However, the commitment to establish the advisory committee is a fair concession to meeting the Senators’ concerns. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government does not exclude representation by the bodies mentioned in the amendment.
While I certainly accept the spirit of amendment No. 5, also in the names of Senators David Norris, Joe O’Toole and Feargal Quinn, I do not consider it appropriate for inclusion in primary legislation. It is the intention of An Chomhairle Leabharlanna to minimise costs where possible and, in this regard, it is drawing on the experience of the UK public lending rights authorities in respect of joint registration, software, sharing of operating systems etc. We need to allow for contingencies in the future, such as additional EU requirements, particular forms of training for staff or the once-off purchase of information technology, and it would be therefore unwise to insert a prescriptive limit of the nature proposed.

Deputy Michael Ahern: I will make the views of Senators Norris and Ross known to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Some of the insinuations made by Senator Ross about people who have been appointed to boards by all parties over the years were totally overboard.

Deputy Michael Ahern: The people in question, who were well-qualified, have done their duties and I am sure those who are appointed to this board will do likewise.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is amendment No. 4 being pressed?

Senator David Norris: I will withdraw it in light of the Minister of State’s indication that the Government has a real commitment to introducing a public lending right scheme.

Deputy Michael Ahern: Definitely.

Senator David Norris: His words are on the record of the House. I am grateful to the Minister of State, who has acted in a courteous manner as usual. This is an important issue. The Seanad has shown its relevance by teasing this matter out and getting the Minister of State’s commitment clearly on the record of the Parliament. I accept that commitment absolutely and I am glad that it has been given. It also means I was correct to follow his invitation to withdraw my suggestion that the Government had tampered with the Cathaoirleach. Like Senator Ross, I am inclined to be cynical. I have not spent anything like the amount of time in the Seanad that Senator Ross has spent here.

Senator David Norris: He has been here since time immemorial, as he has admitted. I am happy to accept what the Minister of State has said. He has done us a service by indicating, as I understand it, that the Government does not have any difficulty with the substance of these amendments. I thank Senator Leyden, who is qualified in this area and has a long-standing interest in and professional acquaintance with it, for expressing his support. It is significant that such support is coming from the Government benches. I know the Minister of State will carry that back to his colleague in the other Department. I will not name the two distinguished gentlemen in the Public Gallery who have given briefings in this area. Having taken the opportunity to slither from the backbenches to whisper in their ears, I understand they are reasonably satisfied with the assurances given by the Minister of State. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendments. I may return to the amendment about the board because I was somewhat tempted by what Senator Leyden had to say.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Section 7 agreed to.

Order of Business - 3rd October 2007

Order of Business - 3rd October 2007

I agree with Senator Fitzgerald that we should be worried about the financial position within the health service. As an ordinary person I am rather surprised at the inaccuracy of the figures given as projections by the Department of Finance. I know this is not an easy area but these figures are remarkably inaccurate from time to time. This looks like a bit of a bump, the effects of which can be seen in the health service, even though significant amounts of money, approximately €15 billion, have been expended on the health service. However, too much of this is spent on administration and on the administration of the HSE whereas not half enough goes directly to the coalface. The result is that in the Cavan-Monaghan hospital operations are being put on the long finger and people’s treatment delayed because a consultant anaesthetist takes a scheduled holiday and the hospital is not allowed to cover his absence because of financial stringency within the service. It is not acceptable that because a consultant anaesthetist goes on holiday, patients are deprived of treatment because coverage is not permitted. It is unprecedented and unprofessional.
I wish to raise a matter also raised by my colleague, Senator Bacik and other Senators, the question of the absence of legislation governing the control of trafficking of human beings in particular for sexual purposes. I raise this matter in light of the reports that Ireland is currently co-operating with police forces in 14 or 15 other European countries in this important area but this co-operation is being hindered by the absence of legislation. Ruhama has stated that the majority of prostitutes, sex workers, in this country are from abroad and that it has dealt with 200 cases of this kind of exploitation in the past year. It is not just an urban situation but happens throughout the country.
I welcome the fact that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, has increased the fine for littering. It would be a great relief in the city of Dublin and especially in the north inner city if we occasionally saw a litter warden. They are rarer than the greater spotted cuckoo. There is no point in increasing the fines unless we support this initiative by having litter wardens fining people.

Order of Business - 13th September 2007

Order of Business - 13th September 2007

I wish to add my voice to those that have congratulated the Cathaoirleach on his election to this distinguished post. I can think of nobody better equipped to fill the role. I met Senator Moylan in the car park when I had just learnt that he would be Cathaoirleach and said privately, as I am happy to say here, that he is an outstanding choice. As Government Whip of the Fianna Fáil group in the Seanad, he operated with courtesy, fairness and integrity, and showed himself to be hard-working and amenable to suggestion. Those are the qualities needed in this role.
It is a tribute to the Senator that there was no election. In the past I proposed Members from the Independent group as candidates for Cathaoirleach because I thought it important in a democracy that we should have an election, but I am happy that Senator Moylan is an outstanding candidate and I look forward to working with him.
I was entertained by the Cathaoirleach’s reference to his nomination by his colleagues on the left and wondered was it a reference to the socialism of the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern.

Senator Donie Cassidy: He is the Senator’s local Deputy.

Senator David Norris: Senator Cassidy, the restored Leader of the House, referred to the media in trenchant terms. We do not need to be frightened. There are many new Senators here, including Senator Eoghan Harris who, having got it so spectacularly wrong on the war in Iraq, may find that in his reportage from the battlefront here in Seanad Éireann he is able to give the people who read the largest selling newspaper in the country the real news.

I congratulate my good colleague and friend, the longest serving Member of this House, and a poll topper, Senator Ross, on the dignity and courage with which he spoke before Senator Moylan attained his present eminence.
I am greatly encouraged by the universal appetite for Seanad reform which usually dwindles after the first day. To encourage it to continue, I have placed on the Order Paper as No. 15, a proposal that we do something about this and adopt the principal recommendations of the report on Seanad reform. I note with interest that for some technical reasons, the names of my colleagues, Senators O’Toole and Ross, are not on the motion. I am sure they will be there, however, by the time we return. I will put it before the House and I ask the Government Members to show their cards by voting for the proposals for Seanad, not the wishy-washy drivel that we all talk about. Let us see them vote for those concrete proposals. That will be a good day.
We have nothing to fear from the further democratisation of the Seanad. I am not ashamed to represent university graduates and do not deprecate them. It is a fine achievement for people to have university degrees. It does not make them better than other people but if the entire panel system had been operated, the university seats would not have been left on their lonely eminence as the only fully democratic section of the Seanad. I remind Senator Cassidy that Senator Ross and I got approximately 5,500 votes each.

Senator Donie Cassidy: I thought I was in the Seanad because I was elected.

Senator David Norris: Does the Senator mean he was elected to the Dáil? There is not one Member on the Government side of the House who received more than approximately 100 real votes. To persuade the people of the fiction that they are genuinely elected, their votes must be multiplied by a factor of 1,000 so that a gullible public will consume the figures.