Private Members Motion - Report on Seanad Reform - 28th November 2007

Private Members Motion - Report on Seanad Reform - 28th November 2007
I will support the amendment to the motion. I indicated I would sign it but I am afraid it was a little too late. My problems with the motion are manifold. I refer to the word "commitment", for example. Senator O'Toole got a commitment from a previous Leader of the House, Michael Lanigan. When he asked if the commitment would be fulfilled, he was told it was not an absolute commitment so there are different kinds of commitments. They are not all musical groups. The motion is also grammatical nonsense in that it states "that as many of these agreed changes can be achieved". As many as what? Is it as many as I want? Is it as many as the Pope decides? Is it as many as the Minister wants? It does not make sense; it is not logical. However, I understand what the Government is at.
I agree with the idea of Seanad reform. That is why I tabled a motion which the Government voted down in the first couple of weeks. All the Members on the Government side trooped through the lobby to vote against exactly what it proposes tonight. However, I detect a greater degree of seriousness in the tenor of this debate. Something probably will happen but I hope it is not confined exclusively to the university seats, although I welcome the extension. However, we ought to look at the way it is being extended. I have suggested various ways to retain certain characteristics of the constituencies, but that will be up to the majority to decide.
I issue one warning. We should not make it a vast constituency of 250,000 or 500,000. That will Americanise the process. Only people with money and the incumbents will be able to go forward. It would be fine for me; I have a high profile on radio and television. If I am not being arrogant, I believe I would have a reasonably good chance of getting elected, but let us think of some young person with radical ideas. How would he or she get elected and how would he or she finance the election? If we are going to do that, we will have to provide a certain amount of finance.
The university panel has encouraged people. I would never have got elected but for it. It is 30 years since I started to campaign to get into this House. I never wanted to be a Member of the Dáil. I am one of the people who wanted to be a Member of this House. There are such people in all parties but we are a minority. Most people want to get into, or back into, the other House. I was the one who coined the phrase about this House being the intensive care ward of the Dáil. I am unrepentant about that. I have made submissions which Members should read if they are interested.
I am make no apology for the university representation. I do not agree with Senator Joe O'Toole on this. There is no need for an apology. It is not particularly elitist and if it is, what about it? There is a lot to be said for elitism and for people who have certain qualities. I salute the people who got university degrees; I think they are great.
I am not taking any lessons in democracy from the parties. I remember being in this House when people were dragooned in to vote for people for whom they were told to vote by their parties. There are a number of people on both sides who remember that. It happened in every party. There was no democracy.
In regard to this delegated university suffrage rubbish, Senator Camillus Glynn gave the lie to that when he spoke about the office in his constituency. His constituency is not Mullingar; it is the administrative panel. The way one gets proper representation is by enfranchising the people. It is a laughing stock. I remember the president of the Royal Irish Academy putting himself forward but he did not get a single vote. Somebody else, whose blushes I will spare, topped the poll. That tells one how representative and democratic it is.
In regard to university representation as opposed to the other, I am not taking back anything I said about county councillors earlier today. I saw the programme on Tuesday night.

I know there are very decent councillors such as Senator Hannigan, who is a former councillor. However, many Members of this House were caught by the tribunals with their fingers in the jam. This was because they were members of councils and this must be addressed and removed. I remember being in this House when every single named officer of this House stood for election and was rejected by the people. One of the most important of them stood for election to the Dáil and was rejected by the people, stood for the European Parliament and was rejected by the people, stood for the Seanad and was rejected by the people and was then nominated and made a Member of the Seanad. That is democracy.
Perhaps I will be told I am being inflammatory but that is the situation. If one is going to do something, one should not just target the university Senators where one gets bloody good value. One may not always like it but one gets good value out of it. One should look at the whole picture, enfranchise people and give voting rights to the ordinary members of the nominated bodies and then one will cover the whole country.

Order of Business - 28th November 2007

Order of Business - 28th November 2007
I listened from the Dáil Gallery to the speech of Mary Harney last night and it was a remarkable performance. I do not use the word "performance" in a scathing manner and I do not wish to suggest there was anything theatrical about it. It was a speech of passionate conviction and I respect this. I have ideological differences with her and I have made them plain in this House. What horrified me was her statement that she was made aware of the ultrasound problem in Portlaoise only on Wednesday at a meeting with other people, spent 24 hours trying to get a satisfactory answer from the HSE and failed to do so.
It is astounding that the Minister for Health and Children cannot extract information from the bureaucracy. It confirms everything stated, not in a partisan way or on this side of the House, but by Members on the other side of the House and by Ministers. This worries me because clearly a real problem exists with regard to information flow.
This is not confined, however, to the Department of Health and Children. As I left the Chamber I encountered a Cabinet leak. As a result of this I was able to inform our distinguished Leader that a decision had been made to embark on Seanad reform, which will scrutinise the university seats in particular.

It was a very interesting proposal and I welcome it but it is time we examined the rest of the seats. We should put an end to their method of election, although I am not casting aspersions on the people who managed to arrive here by a plainly corrupt system. If we are looking for rotten boroughs, they are all around this House but they are not in the six universities.
An Cathaoirleach: That issue can be debated tonight.
Senator David Norris: I was confirmed in my opinion by what I saw on Monday night of avariciousness and lack of integrity among councillors. I am amazed at the lickspittling of local authorities that continues because they are Senators' constituencies.
An Cathaoirleach: A debate will be held later this evening on the issue of Seanad reform. We do not want that debate now. The Senator is very experienced but he should refer to Ministers as "Minister" or "Deputy" rather than by name.
Senator David Norris: I accept the Cathaoirleach's direction. I acted with no disrespect and, in that regard, am astonished he did not rebuke a previous speaker who did precisely the same and who also referred to doctors by name. I should not have to remind the House of the tradition that people are not named when they are not here to defend themselves.
When reforms are introduced, we will want to ensure we do not create a completely unworkable constituency.
An Cathaoirleach: On the Order of Business.
Senator David Norris: It will comprise at least 250,000 electors and could be as many as 500,000. That would suit me and I will take on any little political squirt that the parties produce.
(Interruptions).
Senator David Norris: I have made up my mind. I certainly will run in the next election.
An Cathaoirleach: I do not want Senator Norris to give a lecture to anyone here. As an experienced Senator, I ask him to respect the Chair and his rulings.
Senator David Norris: I very much respect the Chair and I have made that clear.
I tried to raise on the Adjournment the case of a woman from Nigeria, whose name is made privy in the documents I supplied. In 2004 this woman arrived in the country at the age of 15 and she is now 19. She is being deported, even though she is half-way through a degree course and has her leaving certificate. She is unsupported and has no family, having been separated by the situation she experienced, yet we are throwing her back to Nigeria.
I tried to put a motion on the Order Paper requesting the Government to hold a referendum on removing the word "Christian" from the Constitution because of our signal failure to act in a Christian manner towards these people but I could not get a single person to sign my motion. It is utter hypocrisy. We bleat about the undocumented Irish in America but we are sending a girl back to a country where we know she will end up on the streets.
An Cathaoirleach: That is a matter for the Adjournment.
Senator David Norris: I ask in this case and in the case of the autistic boy who was sent back to Nigeria that the Irish embassy in Lagos be required to follow through and find out what happened to these people. It is not good enough that we throw them out of this country and land them on the streets. We may turn them to lives of prostitution but we do not give a damn once they have left this island.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator made his point well.

Statements on Education Policy - 22nd November 2007

Statements on Education Policy - 22nd November 2007
Senator David Norris: I thank Senator O'Toole for sharing his time because he is an expert in this area and would like to make a longer contribution. I am grateful to him. I also welcome the Minister.
Since we started this morning on the Order of Business with an outburst of good news from all sections, let us look at some good news. In my case, I draw attention to the fact that my old university, Trinity College, for the first time entered the first 60 universities in the world. This is a significant achievement for a small island such as ours and I am very proud of that. I am even prouder that DCU entered the first 200 and that is a terrific achievement for this relatively new university.
I also support those who have spoken about the question of the Irish research electronic library initiative. It would be scandalous if, as Senator O'Toole has alleged, it is the universities that are mean-mindedly excluding the DIT. If that is so, as a university representative I do not stand over it.
I have two slightly thorny issues which the Leader directed me to raise here. The first is the question of the four Protestant schools who are in contention. I realise there is a court case, but I want to lay out a couple of ideas in this debate. It seems there is a problem, especially with regard to lack of consultation. The Minister is shaking her head but the reason I say this is because they were bundled together with a group which apparently did not represent their point of view. The Irish School Heads Association, ISA, stated before the negotiations that it did not wish to accept this and that it would not take it on board, but it does not enjoy negotiating rights.
I find difficulty in anything to do with ethos. I really hesitate in such matters. I had great difficulty even with the Adelaide Hospital issue. I supported their position for certain clearly defined reasons and do so in this matter as well because it seems appropriate for a school to be allowed an interview to ensure the teachers fit in. It also respects the teachers.
Some of the schools that have closed, such as Greendale community school, were excellent. I have met the teachers from that school. It is not respectful simply to redeploy them willy-nilly and put them into schools that are hesitant about employing without the teachers undergoing an interview. It is not a sectarian matter. For example, I go to St. Patrick's grammar school every Sunday. Some of the boys, who are not only in the school but sing in the choir, are not members of the Church of Ireland. They are Roman Catholic. Therefore, it cannot be a sectarian matter. It is a question of bullying.
It was stated on radio that this question of protecting an ethos, which is a difficult and sensitive area for a variety of reasons, would be cast aside in the interests of the question of pay. In other words, money was more important. I wonder whether that is true.
In the light of this attitude towards the Protestant schools, I ask the Minister to look again at the exemption of all the religious schools from the operation of the Equality Tribunal and the equality legislation. I say so in particular because of the question of the sexual abuse of children. I am in receipt of material from victims of the situation who do not know whether they still have criminal records.
I will end with this, which is from a victim in this situation:
[These children] were not given a basic minimum education, or proper moral, intellectual and social guidance. ... Their parents were not respected nor helped to provide a family life for their children who were taken from them. ... In their recent attempts to rectify these wrong doings, the Religious Orders, the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Health and Children, Ireland and the Attorney General, have all failed to make discovery of documents, notes, records or memoranda in their possession, thus undermining any possibility of abuse victims getting true justice.
The person further states that this applies to records of detention, case histories, and continues:
Reformatory and Industrial School records and other documents are missing or have deliberately been 'lost'.
So too have details of children being put into care, copies of court proceedings and correspondence from the next of kin.
Medical records are missing, including dental records, hospital attendance and inspections by doctors of institutions.
[As a result] details of complaints against any member of the Religious Orders, lay staff, child minders or gardeners, regarding allegations of abuse are missing.
Similarly, complaints in relation to corporal punishment have not been made available and in most cases have not been preserved.
There has not been any submission to the Ryan Commission or any fully enforced request for this, of accounts of money paid by the State to the Religious Orders for work in institutions and how it was dispersed.
This comes, not from me but from agonised victims. They feel strongly that they have, once again, been let down by the State because of the absence and destruction of records. They are not informed even whether they have a criminal record because, as small children, sometimes under the age of criminal responsibility, they were placed by the State in institutions. They deserve an answer to that, just as I hope we will get an answer on the thorny question of the ethos.
Perhaps the Minister would address also the issue of ethos. It is intolerable that it would be legally permissible for an upstanding citizen, a teacher like me, legally to be fired because of his or her sexual orientation. I know the case history on this. It was not on this island where there has not been such a case but in Scotland where the precedent lies. I had complaints against me in Trinity College on one occasion, but not as a teacher because I was good at my job. The Minister knows that what happened in this case is intolerable. I know it is, too, which is why I ask her to address the issue of ethos.

Order of Business - 22nd November 2007

Order of Business - 22nd November 2007
Senator David Norris: The Taoiseach recently raised the possibility of an honours system, apparently quite seriously. This is an area which must be considered. If we are to do so, this House must address the difficulties of the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997. A heraldry Bill was introduced in here in the last session by former Senator Brendan Ryan but it failed.
I am advised the difficulties are particularly with sections 12 and 13 of the Act and these could be met with a simple amendment which would regularise the position on the granting of coats of arms and so on. This may a little arcane but it is something the State does to distinguished international persons. It also has an impact on tourism. It would also be appropriate if we considered, in light of gender equality, certain anomalous titles in this country. I speak particularly of the Knight of Glynn, who simply because he has daughters cannot pass on that ancient, fascinating and rather charming title. Should we not have equality in inheritance? This would be a simple legislative matter.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has made a strong point.
Senator David Norris: It is a serious point because there is an inequity against a tiny number of Irish citizens. We are going to lose something of the magic of our life. We should consider the Irish titles. I say that because my kinsman, Denys FitzPatrick, died at the age of 105 three weeks ago, the last MacGiolla Phádraig of his line.
Senator Terry Leyden: The Senator could introduce a Bill in Private Members' time.
Senator David Norris: With the support of Senators I would do so.

Motion on Postal Services - 21st November 2007

Motion on Postal Services - 21st November 2007

Senator David Norris: When watching the start of the debate in my office, I found it to be unbelievably dreary with no passion to it. There was a little spark from Senator Martin Brady because he spoke of his experiences as a postman.
Senator Quinn, to whom I am grateful for sharing his time, speaks with some authority on the matter as a former chairman of An Post. He spoke from the heart and said virtually what I wish to say in defence of post offices, particularly rural ones. My grandfather, who was a distinguished scion of an old Gaelic princely family and was swindled out of most his land by relatives, had many jobs including auctioneering and being the local postmaster.
Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: That is from where the Senator's decency comes.
Senator David Norris: His post office was the hub of his local community in County Laois which it remains to this day. When debating hospitals and the need for centres of excellence, politically every Member will stick up for his or her little backyard. However, in the case of the rural post office such a demand is justified.
While we worry about the flight from the land, if we leave no social organisation in rural areas what should we expect? I was delighted to hear a successful businessman like Senator Quinn state that as chairman of An Post he was given a brief to make it money and to make it pay. He has argued that cannot be done while retaining it as a social service.
It must be a social service. Elderly people in rural communities receive their visits from the postman. Often, they will go to the local post office to collect their pensions even though it can be done electronically and letters can be sent by e-mail. Visiting the rural post office entails meeting neighbours and hearing the local gossip. Sometimes the local post office can be a little huckster shop where people can get milk and teabags. It is a vibrant part of society, part of what we are as Irish people.
All of us, including myself, I am proud to say, have one foot in the bog. We should not forget this and not abandon the life so characteristic of this country. We cannot abandon the elderly who need this facility. I strongly support Senator Quinn's arguments on the social element to the post office network.
I urge the Government to ignore the political toing and froing across the floor of the House with Members trying to score party political points. Members must think of the post office workers and the value they give us. We must also think of the social infrastructure it provides.
Last Sunday Gay Byrne on Lyric FM had a request from Attymass in County Mayo, a town which he used to visit. Its post office will be soon closing down, an event of which we often hear. The elderly couple who ran it are retiring but there is no replacement.
I congratulate An Post on the wonderful philatelic items all Members receive.

Order of Business - 21st November 2007

Order of Business - 21st November 2007
Senator David Norris: I cannot forbear from commenting on the previous contribution. Many of the decisions of An Bord Pleanála are bizarre and contradictory.
Senator Camillus Glynn: I do not disagree with that.
Senator David Norris: I look forward to the debate that was called for yesterday. I have plenty of things to say on this and can mention many cases of bad planning supported by Official Ireland here.
I wish to raise an educational matter. I am concerned at widespread reports that four so-called Protestant schools are engaged in legal action against the Department of Education and Science. I know we cannot trespass into an area that is being examined by the courts as it would be improper, but we should have a debate on this. It is apparently the result of the closure of four schools, including Greendale Community School, which is where Roddy Doyle taught. I met some of the teachers from Greendale at a conference some months ago and I would be delighted to be taught by them. They were splendid people. The difficulty arises because teachers are being forced into schools without interviews. I would have thought it was reasonable to want to interview somebody to find out whether he or she had the right qualifications and was the right person for the job in question rather than a square peg in a round hole.
I heard a commentator state yesterday that this is all connected with the national pay agreement and that this would far supersede any question of ethos. The reason I raise the question is that there has been no response whatever from the Government side to repeated calls from people such as myself and Senator O'Toole to re-examine the matter of ethos and the use of this troublesome word to exempt the churches from the basic legislation of the land, the equality legislation. Apparently the Government feels it is appropriate to stuff 30 teachers into Protestant schools without interview, although they may be very good teachers, because there is a question about the wage agreement, and yet we cannot be allowed to reopen the question of the appropriateness of the exemption for the churches in that legislation.
Churches that have been involved in serious abuse of children have retained the right to fire people like me simply because of the nature of their sexual orientation. That is intolerable in this country.
I also support Senator O'Toole on the matter of the Dublin Institute of Technology. I also have the letter from Senator Daly about the Irish research electronic library initiative. It is extraordinary that our seven leading universities should have access to this and the DIT, an institution of which we should be very proud, is kept out of it for some reason. There would be a saving because if the DIT had direct electronic access to this material, it would not need to buy all the journals.
An Cathaoirleach: We will not have a debate on it now.
Senator David Norris: I support Senator O'Toole's reasoned appeal that the Minister should examine this and include the DIT.
All those who complain about the Irish illegals and who challenged the word "illegal" in this House last week should read the interesting and well-argued article by Ms Trina Vargo in The Irish Times of 16 November last. She points out that, in fact, they are illegal and that, although there are difficult family circumstances with which one sympathises, we are now the third richest country in the world and anybody returning to Ireland would not come to a country where there were no jobs and would not be returned to a place where they might be tortured, interrogated or murdered. It would be a salutary exercise for those who squawked about the use of the word "illegal" to read that fine article.

Statements on Cancer Services - 20th November 2007

Statements on Cancer Services - 20th November 2007
Senator David Norris: I thank Senator Prendergast
for allowing me this time to speak. I welcome
the Minister because she is a brave woman
who went into Angola but I wonder if she regrets
that decision now. I will not engage in partisan
political attacks because I agree with those who
said recently that what is needed now is a
Tallaght strategy. Rather than party members
knocking lumps out of each other we should consider
patients’ needs.
I am glad to see that in her speech the Minister
said, “if you are worried about cancer, this is the
best assurance we can give you that the best care
will be there if you need it”. When will this happen?
The word “will” is the crucial verb in this
sentence and it means in the future. The Minister
also said, “If you live in rural Ireland or outside
a major city, you deserve the same care as a person
living right beside a major cancer hospital and
you will get it”. Again I ask the Minister, when
will this happen? Can she guarantee the Susie
Long case will never be repeated in this country?
Can she guarantee that the Portlaoise case will
never be replicated? I believe this situation has
arisen due to an ideology and that the notions of
competition, co-location and so on are ideologically
driven. I pointed out to the Minister previously
that a three page script of hers mentioned
words relating to business and these practices
around ten times while patients went unmentioned.
I know the Ministers feels strongly about
patients but they must be at the forefront of
health policy.
Regarding private hospitals, the Minister
pointed out previously that one needs a licence
to own a dog but not to run a hospital. This is
because hospitals are businesses but I do not feel
that the health service should be a business; it
should be an entitlement of the citizens of the
State. I have no medical expertise but I believe,
along with many eminent medical professionals,
that we need a universal, accessible health
service. The Minister once said we should be
closer to Boston than Berlin but I would prefer
to be close to some European models of health
service than the American model. Has the Minister
seen the film “Sicko”? It shows that the
American health system is guided by the principles
of competition and profit and while the
United States has excellence in its health service
it also has people routinely and ruthlessly
excluded from the provision of health care.
I wish to put on the record my admiration for
Professor John Crown. I have never met the man
and have no connection with him but I listened
to him with interest and I trust a lot of what he
says. The Minister may agree with some of the
problems he has identified in the health service
including inaccessibility, inefficiency, unfairness
and an uneven quality of delivery. He agrees with
the Minister that the best clinical care takes place
in large, comprehensive specialist centres. One
may look at examples such as the Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre and the Netherlands
Cancer Institute when considering the poor
resources we have.
We, as politicians, must take some of the blame
because many Senators do not see their constituents
as the councillors who gave them their seats
in this House but as those in the constituencies
where they may seek election to Da´ il E´ ireann and
they fight for local services. Professor Donal Hollywood
from Trinity College produced a report
in 1995 and had to have a police escort out of
Portlaoise because of people stirring things up
against him. Senator Harris was right when he
raised the issue of vested interests, however those
with vested interests are not, primarily, consultants
but managers in the health service. Managers
proliferate faster than any local service and this
matter must be addressed.
I was interested to read a piece by Professor
Maurice Nelligan.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator’s time has
expired.
Senator David Norris: Professor Nelligan
cannot be silenced. He stated that too many
promises are made regarding sophisticated
services regardless of cost only for cutbacks to be
made when the bills must be paid. The blame for
this is then shifted elsewhere.
We need a universal health service closer to
European models and we must stop political
point-scoring on the health service. We should
adopt a Tallaght strategy, not in the interest of
private medicine and profit but in the interest of
the delivery of appropriate services to the citizens
of this country.


Senator David Norris: I have three questions
also. I support strongly the idea of centres of
excellence. I know there are political difficulties
because everybody seems to fight for their own
back yard but it is important. It would have been
better if they had got agreement in principle from
everybody before they looked at the geographic
location. That was a flaw. Also, the public must
be reassured that no more local services will be
closed until the centres of excellence are in
existence.
Senator Nicky McFadden: Hear, hear.
Senator David Norris: There is no point in
doing it the other way around.
On that basis I would like an update on the
position regarding St. Luke’s Hospital. I ask the
question because of the special benefits that
accrue to patients there, large numbers of whom
have contacted me. There are substantial grounds
in the hospital where they can have a walk, sit
down, enjoy the shrubbery and so on and many
of them, as well as some of the staff, have told
me that is vital in terms of assisting in their recovery.
I understand there are proposals to move
that to St. James’s Hospital, possibly into some
kind of tower block. Will the situations that have
been proved beneficial in the special circumstances
of St. Luke’s be replicated? Will people
have that kind of nurturing environment or will
they be stuck in some type of tower block? Is
there a timescale in that regard?
Regarding my second question, I have been
very impressed, as have many members of the
public, by the passionate advocacy of Professor
John Crown. That may not be popular with
everybody but we appear to have in this man a
national asset, somebody who has international
experience, a clear view and is a specialist in the
area of cancer. Is there any way he can be
brought on board in terms of getting to grips with
the area of cancer treatment? That would go a
long way towards making the public believe that
we were all rowing in this together. I would link
that with what I said earlier this afternoon about
a Tallaght strategy. All of us must fight in that
regard. I said it about politicians earlier and I say
it now about doctors too. I would welcome it if
he could be brought on board.
Taking up what Senator O’Toole said, my third
question is about cleaning. My compliments to
the Minister on the way she is taking these questions
and dealing with them; obviously she is
somebody who is in control of the information.
1513 Cancer Services: 20 November 2007. Statements 1514
We may not agree with every attitude, programme
and ideology but she has the facts at her
finger tips.
With regard to cancer patients, when they have
had chemotherapy, radiotherapy or whatever,
their immune systems are often weakened. They
are particularly vulnerable in terms of infection
and a lack of cleanliness. Would the Minister
agree that a business model is not necessarily the
most efficient in this regard? Many hospitals buy
hours of cleaning, which might appear good in an
accountancy statement but it is inefficient. Would
it not be a good idea to have dedicated in-house
staff to do the cleaning on the spot when
required?

Order of Business - 20th November 2007

Order of Business - 20th November 2007
Senator David Norris: I am sure the Members
would like to recognise the presence of the
former Independent Senator and professor
emeritus, John A. Murphy, who graced these
benches until recently. I support Senators
O’Toole and O´ Murchu´ on the appalling situation
in Iran. The woman was sentenced to a considerable
number of lashes, which is a savage punishment,
but this was doubled or trebled because she
had the temerity to appeal. I raised these issues
at the recent assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary
Union in Nairobi and I am glad to say I was supported
by Senator Leyden on the matter of a
mentally handicapped 16 year old girl in Iran who
was executed for the crime of being raped by her
neighbours. Two young men in their late teens
were involved in a relationship and were battered
for many weeks and, after six months’ detention,
were hanged from the back of a lorry. This is
revolting behaviour and we should protest against
it. I am glad Senator O’Toole mentioned frontliners
and yesterday I launched the appeal for
support for these brave people who, in such difficult
circumstances, stand up on behalf of their
communities.
I am glad Senator Fitzgerald raised the appropriate
questions on children’s rights and the children’s
referendum. I have a message from a victim
of institutional sexual abuse that refers to the
apology to such victims given by the Taoiseach,
Deputy Bertie Ahern, some years ago on behalf
of the State. I am told the Ryan commission is
only taking evidence from a handful of victims
and has only managed to investigate a fraction of
the thousands of allegations of abuse. Many victims
feel they have once more been failed by the
State, especially as some children were put in care
at tender ages and left with a criminal record.
There is legislation before the House that will
help expunge certain criminal records and surely
these people should have their records expunged.
Not only were these victims violated and abused,
they were left with a criminal record. I ask that
we examine this situation.
Road safety was discussed recently in this
House and the issue has arisen several times since
Parliament reconvened, yet today we discover
that Cork County Council is to go to court to
prevent the Health and Safety Authority
inspecting roadworks. The Donegal county manager
intervened in a similar fashion because he
found that his workers were upset. This comes in
the context of the case of Tommy Gallagher,
raised by myself and others, who lost his daughter
Aisling because of completely inappropriate road
treatment. That young girl was driving carefully
and met her end because of a lack of care shown.
The matter in Trim also relates to road safety.
I am tired of raising these issues in debates as
I am tired of raising consistency in speed limits
and road humps. Last week I crossed a road
hump at 20 km/h and damaged both shock absorbers,
which will cost me \1,000. How can we
expect people to show respect when such incidents
occur and when county managers refuse to
let the Health and Safety Authority, HSA, make
inspections?

Local Government (Roads Functions) Bill 2007 - Second Stage Debate - 15th November 2007

Local Government (Roads Functions) Bill 2007 - Second Stage Debate - 15th November 2007.
Senator David Norris: I shall not need the time allocated. While having lunch I noticed the Minister was here, realised I had glanced through the Bill and wanted to make just two or three points. The Minister is aware of some of them.
I welcome the Bill as tidying-up legislation. There seems to be a good deal of that at the moment, a certain amount of revenue gathering and sharing and divvying out, so to speak. A large part of this Bill is a divvying out exercise as well, or part of it. Senator Boyle referred to his anticipation of further legislation giving details in this area. I welcome the fact that overall responsibility for non-national roads is being transferred from one Department to another and tightened.
I understand, however, there is no provision in the Bill for the creation of overall national supervision in terms of factors, for example, such as speed limits. This urgently needs to be addressed. I say it again, knowing it will look somewhat odd on the record of the House, if anyone in future generations bothers to read them. I have said this on a number of occasions before but it is the first time I have had the opportunity to put it to the Minister and the particular group of distinguished civil servants accompanying him.
In terms of road safety, for example, we need to gain the respect of citizens. We will not do that by having a chaotic, unco-ordinated and irrational system. I shall give one example, as I did yesterday in the road safety debate. The road to Tallaght goes past the Square, a three-lane highway with a very fine surface and a 60 km/h speed limit. One moves from that to a winding country road where the limit immediately goes up to 100 km/h. How can we possibly expect the ordinary citizen to respect the road network when we have this type of lunacy? Every time I raise this I am told it is not a function of central authority but is under the control of a large number of different local authorities. This is wrong and that chaos can be addressed legislatively by bringing the whole matter of the setting of speed limits into the national arena. There should be national standards, as well, in terms of road surface treatment. The situation is serious and we have had two major fatal accidents because of inappropriate road surface treatment. In other words, while I approve of the general direction of the legislation, it is not going far enough because significant bits are left out.
Another hobby horse to which I wish to give a brief and life-enhancing gallop this afternoon is the question of motor vehicle taxation. I note that this again is being transferred from one section to another, becoming centralised and all the rest. The Minister is on record in the media as advocating an increase in taxation for larger vehicles. I understand the rationale for that varies, the principal one being that it means more lolly for the Government to waste. I must put my cards on the table, however, and admit there is a personal element to my argument. I cannot afford to drive a Ford or a Volkswagen. I got my Jaguar for €4,000 or €5,000 because it was old and no longer a status symbol. I buy the cast-offs of the rich, as a great many people do, because they can afford big comfortable cars-----
Senator Fiona O'Malley: The Senator could have got a Ford for €4,000.
Senator David Norris: Would I, honestly? My goodness, the things one learns in this House.
Senator Fiona O'Malley: He might not look quite so elegant, however.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: Senator O'Malley could be behind the wheel.
Senator David Norris: Many people buy old cars and then find the tax is very high. I pay about half what I paid for the car in tax and that is daft. To increase it further is not necessarily an environmentally friendly measure because, for example, I do not use the car all that much. I used to cycle to Leinster House until I was knocked off my bicycle in O'Connell Street, which is extremely dangerous, as we know. The improvements to the visual aspects of O'Connell Street have actually made it more dangerous, as witnessed by the bus crash the day before yesterday. Therefore I will not be cycling down O'Connell Street if I can possibly avoid it, especially because the compensation one gets for being knocked off is not all that great. The last time I got less than €1,000, and I am not risking my life for that.
A number of people have these large cars and not because they are antagonistic to green issues. In fact the green issues and the environment would be better served by putting a tax on petrol. The possession of a car of whatever size does not affect the environment. What does are the emissions. I am out of the country for four months of the year. For four months of the year that car is immobile and yet I pay this enormous amount of tax. I happen to love it and believe it will be a classic car if I can afford to keep it. We should look at the question of putting a tax on petrol rather than increasing motor tax on large cars because that is when the polluter pays. If one does a lazy accounting exercise and simply increases the tax on a car just because it is large, regardless of whether it is used, that is inefficient. If the tax is put on petrol every time a car is taken out of the garage, someone pays, but in proportion to the expulsion of fumes from the vehicle.

Order of Business - 15th November 2007

Order of Business - 15th November 2007
Senator David Norris: I agree with my colleagues, including Senator Hanafin, that we should have a discussion with the Minister for Transport. I am very concerned about the situation in Aer Lingus. The management there is obviously under pressure from Ryanair and one can understand its difficulties but it is trying to extract a written undertaking from workers that they will not strike. Is this September 1913 or November 2007? There is a clear echo of William Martin Murphy about this and it is completely wrong.
We should have integrated ticketing. It is not a terribly complicated exercise. Senator Hanafin's party in Government promised it seven years ago, so I do not know what the problem is. Perhaps the problem is the Railway Procurement Agency. I was in Belfast the other day and travelled on the Enterprise. I asked if it was one of the Spanish trains and was told it was. They are the trains on which we spent €85 million but we got the calibre of the bogies wrong. They do not fit so if the train travels over 25 mph, one's coffee lands on one's lap and yet we went ahead and bought them. This is the kind of problem with which we are dealing.
Competition does not always work in the interests of the consumer. It is about time we realised that and became a bit more sophisticated and looked at what competition in certain circumstances does, especially in the area of supermarkets, etc.
Will the Leader give me the information he promised me on whether we are going to act sensibly, to use his words, and introduce Second Stage of the Defamation Bill so that Members can have the opportunity to speak on it? This is very important because a series of newspapers are behaving in exactly the same way they did before the Defamation Bill was dropped. They are obviously fairly cocky about the situation. Will the Leader confirm that the Privacy Bill has been effectively dropped and that the Government is not going ahead with it?
I agree with Senator Donohoe that one needs to be careful about what one says because irony is occasionally lost. Yesterday I referred to the explosion of managerial staff in hospitals and I do not retract a single word. I threw in a reference to Chairman Mao and my esteemed and valued colleague, Senator O'Toole, made an ironic aside about Pol Pot. Today I discovered that I am calling for Pol Pot's policies to be implemented in Ireland. Not really - that was irony, darlings.

Statements on Road Safety - 14th November 2007

Statements on Road Safety - 14th November 2007
Senator David Norris: I thank Senator Quinn for sharing time and I welcome the Minister of State.
It is clear that a large preponderance of accidents involve many young people with alcohol taken driving on country roads in the early hours of the morning at weekends. If one applies a grid test, one will discover that it covers a significant number of these five or six elements. We must, therefore, examine these elements and address them.
I do not believe that travelling at speed is, of itself, dangerous. One need only consider Germany, where there are either no real speed limits or very high speed limits on the autobahns.

It has not lead to any greater danger. It is a question of bad driving and bad manners on the part of road users and bad management of the roads on the part of us.
I am all in favour of equality. I note that women, who used to be much better and more courteous drivers than men, have achieved equality and are now just as ignorant and subject to road rage. I do not state this is specifically directed at male drivers. It now covers everybody.
Some people are prepared to cause a possibly fatal road accident rather than allow somebody legitimately to change lanes. I come across this frequently. If one attempts to pass somebody out on a motorway or a suburban street, the reaction from a man or a woman is to put the foot down and do his or her damnedest to prevent one from doing so. This may well place one in a situation where one must try to reduce speed and get back in behind this driver or face the possibility of going straight into oncoming traffic. It is a question of manners. We also seem to have a great deal of road rage, particularly in the city of Dublin.
Travel at speed is not of itself a danger. What is dangerous is having completely inconsistent and chaotic speed limits and the ordinary driver has no incentive to respect them. I have stated this on numerous occasions during previous debates. It was eventually taken up by the previous Minister who quoted me. We can all give examples of this. The example I usually give is going from the excellent three lane highway in Tallaght where the limit is 60 km/h to a winding country road where the speed limit increases to 100 km/h. It is insane. Why would anybody respect this? I certainly do not. One will probably find a camera or a couple of gardaí there to catch one out.
Legislation should be introduced to take the setting of speed limits out of the hands of local authorities and place it at national level. The answer I am always given is that these are different jurisdictions. If we are serious let us have consistency. It is the same with road humps. Who designs these things? One would not notice some of them and if one goes over others at 10 mph one is likely to break one's axle. I crossed one on the North Quays at 15 mph and I am lucky to have a car left. Will the Minister of State and his officials make note of this and see whether we can introduce uniformity? Where the speed limit is 30 km/h it should be a requirement of those putting in road humps that motorists can travel across them at that speed. Otherwise it is dangerous and motorists do not respect them.
The Minister of State is aware of a number of tragic cases such as that of a young woman on her way to Shannon Airport to take a plane to the United States who was killed because of the negligence of the local authority, which used a completely inappropriate road surface treatment and did not place any warnings. The same situation was involved in the school bus tragedy in Trim. Local authorities do not live up to their responsibilities.
Often, I walk down O'Connell Street as I am afraid to cycle because I have been knocked off my bicycle. We should also consider how motorcycle couriers dangerously weave in and out of the traffic on O'Connell Street. On occasions, when walking home with my partner, he pointed out the paving system on O'Connell Street which is extremely dangerous. He stated repeatedly to me that an accident would occur and somebody would be killed. To create a piazza effect the distinction between the pavement and the road has been blurred. A couple of days ago a lorry mounted the pavement and a young man was seriously injured.
Drivers have responsibility and this issue is not only about speed. We have a syndrome involving young people, drink, the early hours of the morning, country roads, too many people in a car and old bangers. As legislators we also have a responsibility as do those at local authority level. I appeal to the Minister of State to consider the matters of consistency of speed limits so they will be respected and observed and I urge him to create uniformity and safety in road humps which in some cases are no use and in others are virtually a death-trap.

Order of Business - 14th November 2007

Order of Business - 14th November 2007

Senator David Norris: In reiterating the calls made by Senators yesterday for a debate on the health service, I would like to emphasise one aspect of it. Somebody must have been listening to what was said yesterday when a number of Senators, including myself, raised the question of hospital hygiene. It is worrying that, according to the report published yesterday, a large number of people die from hospital-acquired infections. When I was watching television last night, I discovered that despite the proliferation of managers and systems in the health service, we do not have precise figures for the level of mortality that results from hospital-acquired infections. It is astonishing that the health service authorities have admitted that we do not know how many people actually die. We learned in this morning's newspapers that our hospitals are not just dirty - they are actually filthy. Just seven of this country's 51 public hospitals are rated as "good", the vast majority - 35 - are "fair" and nine are "poor", which means they are really dirty and dangerous. Is anybody surprised?
An Cathaoirleach: Does the Senator want a debate on this issue?
Senator David Norris: Yes. It is very important that a debate be arranged to allow us to look at this situation. The point I made yesterday - that it is not acceptable that it can take a long time for spillages of human waste to be cleaned when contract cleaners are in hospitals for a limited number of hours - was emphasised again today on the radio. I direct the attention of the Members of the House to a passionate letter written by Dr. Patrick Plunkett, which is published in today's The Irish Times. All Senators should read it.
The Seanad debate on dirt in hospitals could be widened to reflect the fact that we are a filthy people. I really do not know of any other society that is so dirty. When I said in this House a couple of years ago that people routinely urinate and defecate in the streets of Dublin, I was laughed at and wisecracks were made by Senators on all sides of the House. Respectable people can often be seen putting their feet up on the seats of public transport. God knows what they have been walking in. If a nurse sits on such a seat, for example in a train, he or she might bring whatever was left on it into a hospital. Are we surprised? It is time for us to recognise and deal with the idea of Irish filth. Perhaps I will make a suggestion off the top of my head - why not do a Chairman Mao on all these managers? Just as he sent professional people to work in the fields to give them a taste of physical labour, why should we not make hospital managers do a bit of cleaning?
Senator Joe O'Toole: We could do a Pol Pot on it.
Senator David Norris: Yes, even better. Wonderful.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: They are all Trinity graduates.
Senator Jim Walsh: Good one, Jerry.
Senator Dominic Hannigan: That is not a subject for flippancy.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: There go the votes from Trinity.
Senator David Norris: Can I ask about the Defamation Bill 2006? When I raised this matter a week or two ago, the Leader agreed with me that it was not a good idea to reintroduce it on Committee Stage as 35 Senators - a majority of the Members of the House - had not had an opportunity to discuss it on Second Stage. He said my proposal was sensible. I see that sense has not yet broken out on the Order Paper - the Bill is still listed there for Committee Stage. We know that the Minister has decided to drop the Privacy Bill 2006, which was supposed to partner the Defamation Bill 2006. As a consequence of some significant developments in this regard - I refer to a series of libel cases resulting from some damaging reporting in the newspapers - we have some new information that should be taken into account. Will the Leader provide for a sensible discussion on the Defamation Bill 2006, instead of taking a short cut by reintroducing it on Committee Stage?

Statements on Government Irish Aid Strategy - 13th November 2007

Statements on Government Irish Aid Strategy - 13th November 2007

Senator David Norris: I wish to share my time
with Senator Mullen and Senator Bacik.
1179 Government’s Irish Aid Strategy: 13 November 2007. Statements 1180
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is that agreed?
Agreed.
Senator David Norris: I am being greedy in
taking seven or eight minutes while the remaining
time will be shared between the Senators. I think
it is five or six minutes and three minutes. I know
the Leas-Chathaoirleach will be his usual flexible
self.
I welcome the Minister of State, who is an old
friend from the Oireachtas Committee on
Foreign Affairs. I noticed that we were visited by
a distinguished delegation led by the Chairman of
that committee. I am not sure which countries
were represented but it is good they came to the
House.
I note some positive things in the Minister of
State’s speech, such as the acknowledgement of
the need to move towards a goal of 0.7% of gross
national product by 2012, given the disappointment
of an earlier promise which was given categorically
by the Taoiseach. At least, we are more
or less on track, which I definitely welcome.
I remember when, during a meeting of the
Oireachtas Committee of Foreign Affairs, Liz
O’Donnell, who was a member of the Government
at the time, said that the only way to copperfasten
it was to legislate for it and put in an
annual budget head. That is what is necessary if
one is serious about it so let us do it. Let us not
have pious conversation about it. We are at 0.5%
, which is reasonably healthy. We expect to get to
0.6% by 2010 and 0.7% by 2012. I know the Minister
of State will be on our side with regard to
this but let us legislate for it. If we are serious
about giving commitments, let us copperfasten
them.
I also very much welcome the idea of a hunger
task force. Of course, our aid has increased. It is
about \800 million this year. We have an obligation
to the Irish taxpayer to ensure we invest
in the expertise which will allow us to administer
it effectively. I am saying this following Hans
Zomer from Do´ chas which recently launched a
very important series of documents just down the
road from this House. We must other monitor
international trade agreements to ensure that the
selfish northern countries do not, through their
trade agreements, significantly undermine the
money transferred from Irish taxpayers. There is
not much point if it ends up in the pockets of
multinationals.
I wish to raise the issue of corruption. I was
astonished by the fact that there was not a single
mention of it in the Minister of State’s speech. In
addition, there was no mention of it in the speech
of the principal spokesman for the Opposition,
although Senator Daly did make a glancing reference
to it twice in his speech. However, they were
glancing references and I think we must really
look at the issue. The nine developing countries
that have received most of our aid — in other
words, taxpayers’ money from this country —
remain at the bottom of the scale measuring levels
of corruption, although there have been some
improvements. All but two of those programme
countries nominated by Irish Aid, the Government’s
overseas development division, score less
than three in Transparency International’s Corruption
Perceptions Index. This is a ghastly
phenomenon and suggests we should get as much
money as possible directly to NGOs, particularly
to people like Mr. John O’Shea and Mr. Niall
Mellon, who builds houses in South Africa. As an
Irish person I am proud of that and we know that
every penny goes directly to helping people,
which is not the case with the hundreds of millions
siphoned off by corrupt dictators for their
floozies, mistresses, arms and toys for big boys.
That is not why we pay tax in this country.
If we are serious we can ratify the UN Convention
against Corruption. I understand we have
not done so and I ask the Minister of State to
give a commitment to ratifying the convention or
else a convincing reason why we have not done
so. We must publish that legislation within the
term of this Parliament.
We should also adopt the UN human rights
norms for business guidelines, which we have not
done. We should push for an international convention
to end banking secrecy. This allows these
blackguards to squirrel their money away in numbered
bank accounts in respectable European
countries such as Switzerland. As a compliant tax
payer, who has just shelled out \20,000 in preliminary
tax returns, I do not want to see it in Mobutu
Sese Seko’s bank account in Geneva. I object to
that. We seek better governance and should help
those who improve. Those who do not should not
receive a penny. Instead, the money should be
distributed through agencies such as GOAL and
Mr. Niall Mellon.
We should support the extractive industry’s
transparency initiative and the publish what you
pay initiatives. Many of these countries in Africa
have major natural resources and are being
exploited in the interest of dictators and multinationals.
We are entitled to know what is happening.
It is a filthy thing when we see leaders
taking money from the poorest and the most disadvantaged,
money to which these groups are
entitled. This has major consequences and means
disease, lack of water and the capacity to survive
on this planet. The sums involved are enormous,
hundreds of millions and up to \15 billion in
some cases. This is inappropriate. We need to set
up clean water systems.
There is major embezzlement and extortion by
officials, weak financial administration and no
accountability in these recipient countries. Mr.
Martin Meredith, one of the shrewdest observers
of Africa points out that of 53 countries in Africa,
only South Africa and Botswana are better off
now than under colonial rule, an appalling indictment.
The African Union acknowledges that $148
billion is lost to corruption. Why are we feeding
this corruption? It is like pouring petrol on
flames.
The US Senate established a committee that
reported its findings in a study in 2004 that the
1181 Government’s Irish Aid Strategy: 13 November 2007. Statements 1182
World Bank has lost $1 billion of funds slated for
development in the worlds poorest countries
since 1946. This amounts to a 20% bleed-off of
its lending portfolio to keep these corrupt people.
Mr. Paul Wolfowitz attempted to do something,
as did Mr. Hilary Benn, who called for an international
framework. At the instigation of people
like Bono, the G8 is increasing aid by $50 million
but Mr. Hilary Benn, who I know, states that it is
hard to see how this bonanza will help to eradicate
poverty unless governments on the continent
are serious about fighting corruption.
I suggest a few ideas. Can a government that
signally fails to guarantee the wellbeing of its citizens
be trusted with our money when we know it
is on the take? We are aware of it. In November
2006, the Department of Foreign Affairs acknowledged
to the Committee of Public Accounts that
dealing with corrupt governments of countries
such as Ethiopia and Uganda was “not ideal”, a
phrase that keeps cropping up. It is the diplomatic
term for “completely rotten”. In May, the
audit committee of the Department of Foreign
Affairs highlighted the absence of a clear fraud
policy in the Department. We should have one.
Deputy Michael Noonan, then Chairman of the
Public Accounts Committee, stated on 2 June
that it would be considered inadvisable to accept
the audit of a government of sub-Saharan Africa.
Let us deal with Ethiopia and Uganda, counties
that are a byword for scandal. We gave \29 million
and \32 million respectively to these countries.
Do we know where it went? We know
where a significant proportion of it went. This disgraces
the wonderful work of Father Shay Cullen
and Mr. Tom Hyland, who I am proud to call a
friend. I brought him to the Joint Committee on
Foreign Affairs but we are letting down these
people. I am astonished there was no mention of
corruption in the speech of the Minister of State.

Order of Business - 13th November 2007

Order of Business - 13th November 2007
Senator David Norris: I support Senator
Fitzgerald in her call for a debate on the health
service and for the Minister for Health and Children
to come to the House. She took on a difficult
position but serious questions have been raised.
We should also debate the matter of balance on
“The Late Late Show”. If we allow this situation
to continue we will allow censorship by default.
If the Government refuses to produce spokespersons
the debate can be seriously vitiated in the
alleged interest of balance. Two empty chairs
should have been labelled “Minister for Health
and Children” and “Chief Executive of the HSE”
and people should have been let make up their
own minds.
I was extremely concerned at the comments of
the Taoiseach in the Da´ il when he referred to Mr.
John Crown and the dossier he had. Are there
dossiers on all of us in public life? I do not like
the idea of being watched by “Big Bertie”. It is
not appropriate. If we seek talent we should bring
people like John Crown on board to help us and
not subject him to this.
Senators: Hear, hear.
Senator David Norris: On numerous occasions,
I raised the question of hygiene, particularly in
accident and emergency units where approximately
75% of cases over a weekend are caused
by alcohol and people behave in an extremely
unhygenic fashion. I ask the Minister for Health
and Children come to the House to discuss the
following ideological element. As a result of the
notion of competition and capitalism in action we
do not have an efficient cleaning service but a
specified number of hours of cleaning provided
per week. When the 100 hours are completed the
staff pack up their mops and leave, regardless of
whether the place is clean. These are the issues
we need to address.
I also seek a debate on the Shell oil company
and the Corrib gas field in light of the granting of
a licence for the development at Bellanaboy. On
Saturday I attended an anniversary commemoration
of the judicial murder by Nigerian authorities
of Ken Saro-Wiwa, in which Shell was at
least marginally implicated. It is clear his brother
entered into negotiations with senior executives
of the company who indicated that if the campaign
for the Ogoni people was called off, they
would intervene to save his life. I wonder if that
is acceptable. A film screened at the commemoration
showed the way in which oil pipelines were
driven through the native people’s land, polluting
and destroying it. The organs of the state were
used to force that through.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris is looking to
the Leader for a debate. We can have that debate
on another occasion.
I am precisely seeking a
debate. I have the greatest of respect for the
Garda, members of whom were at our demonstration
and were as helpful, courteous and polite
as they usually are. However, it is not appropriate
they should be used in the west as the shock
troops of a discredited multinational combine and
it is not fair on them because it places them in an
invidious position.
I hope I am not being parochial when I call for
a debate on the transport system and, in particular,
a small but important element of it. Dublin
City Council has apparently decided to turn
Mountjoy Square, one of our finest 18th century
squares, into a car park for private commercial
bus companies. Irrespective of the fact that a nursery
school and a playground are located there
and even leaving aside the architectural significance
of the place, it is a danger to children. We
ought, as responsible representatives, to investigate
the matter.

Statements on Food Safety - 8th November 2007

Statements on Food Safety - 8th November 2007

Senator David Norris: I am grateful to my colleague for sharing his time. I welcome the Minister of State. I wish to raise a small number of concerns. The first is the question of labelling which was raised by my colleague, Senator O’Toole, who is very interested in this area. I am concerned, as he is, because people, including shopkeepers, do not appear to appreciate the difference between “use by” and “best before” dates. This has been drawn to our attention by Dr. John O’Brien, Chief Executive of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. He says:

It is alarming that some businesses are ignorant about this most basic, but critical labelling requirement - the shelflife of the product. Our campaign simply explains that a ’Use By’ date is used on products that are highly perishable and if they are consumed after their ’Use By’ date they could cause illness. ’Best Before’ dates refer to a period that a product remains at its best condition and whilst people can eat products after the ’Best Before’ date has passed, they may disappoint in terms of quality but they should not pose a food safety risk.
This is a very significant point if there is misunderstanding not just by shoppers but also by shopkeepers. The authority also examined breakfast cereal that was labelled as gluten free and yet was found to contain high levels of gluten. That is very dangerous for people who suffer from coeliac disease. Labelling is clearly an important and significant element. There is also the question of items labelled as Irish when they are of foreign origin. A study of 55 different kinds of noodles for irradiation found that approximately 25% of products had irradiated ingredients. There is a legal requirement that this be stated on the label but it was not.
This leads me to the question of genetically modified foods. I would like the Minister of State to take this very seriously, as the Minister of State, Deputy Trevor Sargent, does. I draw the attention of the Minister of State to a very interesting book, entitled Genetic Roulette, by Jeffrey M. Smith. The information contained in it is very worrying. It is compiled by scientists and it demonstrates clearly that in terms of genetically modified crops, frequently the pollen from those crops can adversely affect the health of people living in the area. We have noticed, even in this country, an increase in allergies. This situation will only be made worse if we do not retain our status as a GM free country. I note the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, is committed to this position and I applaud him for it.
It is important we would remain committed to this position even if there were not scientific worries. From a marketing and labelling point of view, it would very advantageous for us to be able to indicate that our food products were free of this material. However, it is a position that is very difficult to maintain. Tesco, for example, has a GM free policy but this has been vitiated because their own brand American long grain rice was recently contaminated with Bayer CropScience’s genetically modified American long-grain GM rice variety LL601. It was discovered in two packs of Tesco dried American long grain rice. This is illegal in the EU and the USA, yet it managed to get into the shops in Ireland. That is how penetrative it is.
Monsanto is behind most of this. Monsanto claims, through Mr. Robert Shapiro, the chief executive officer, to be interested in all kinds of ideals of feeding the world and so on. In the introduction to the book Genetic Roulette it is recounted that somebody who was idealistically motivated by the speeches, words and writings of Mr. Shapiro took a job there and was told by senior management that what Robert Shapiro says is one thing but what they do is something else. They are there to make money. He is the front man who tells a story. They do not even understand what he is saying. That is what we are dealing with. A scientific committee which was established in the United Kingdom made certain quite worrying findings. Subsequently it was disbanded. It is time we looked at the question of genetically modified food, the idea of patenting life forms and the questions raised about whether there can be pollution of neighbouring areas from genetically modified crops. There have been court cases about that where neighbouring farmers found their crops were contaminated but were then sued by Monsanto. The judgment of the Canadian court was that regardless of whether the farmer was responsible, and it was found he had not stolen the material, he was responsible. He owed money to Monsanto precisely because it had patented the life form and was entitled to a return on it, regardless of whether he had taken it from elsewhere or planted it. It was due to the fact that it crept in-----

Acting Chairman (Senator O’Toole): Your time is up, Senator.

Senator David Norris: This is an extraordinary takeover of our food resources and the Government would be right to resist it.

Order of Business - 8th November 2007

Order of Business - 8th November 2007

This is the 20th anniversary of the outrage at Enniskillen, which led to pressure being placed on the Provisional IRA to cease its actions. I was newly elected at the time and I remember how Mr. John Robb went to the desk of the then Cathaoirleach, Mr. Charles McDonald, and gave him the poppy he was wearing, which the Cathaoirleach then wore for the day. It was a moving gesture. We remember the horror of the day and welcome the fact that the situation has ended.
I welcome the calls for Seanad reform. I laughed cynically because I have heard such calls for the 20 years in which I have been a Member. I made many calls and suggestions, but they disappeared into thin air. Let us not hear about rotten boroughs because none of the nominating bodies have influence. The majority of Senators are nominated by the Taoiseach or put in by a handful of councillors and parliamentarians. That is fine, but there is a constant diversionary attack on the only constituencies with real constituents. We are described as rotten boroughs, but I will not accept that.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Councillors are-----

An Cathaoirleach: We can discuss this matter later.

Senator David Norris: We will return such attacks four fold. If one wishes to know how enthusiastic Members are for reform, one should examine the record of some weeks ago when a report I tabled was voted against by Government Senators. We have a role to play in these matters and we can use our powers, such as they are.
Yesterday, I raised the matter of former Senator Maurice Manning’s statement to the effect that the Government attempted to interfere with his report on rendition and to put him under pressure, angering him. Will the House exercise its facility to invite Dr. Manning to present the report and to allow Members to question him?

Senator Mary M. White: Hear, hear.

Senator David Norris: Our inquiry was set up, but it was crippled and destroyed at the instigation of the Government. Let us have the matter out in the open and let us use our facilities to bring Dr. Manning before the House.
I am proud that Trinity College is one of the 60 top universities in the world and I congratulate Dublin City University on getting into the top 200 for the first time. As an almost brand new university, this is a wonderful tribute to Ireland’s third level system.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has made his point.

Senator Joe O’Toole: The Senator believed it was the best in the world.

Senator David Norris: It is only dawning on me.

Statements on Energy Security and Climate Change - 7th November 2007

Statements on Energy Security and Climate Change – 7th November 2007

I thank my colleagues for sharing time and welcome the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, to the House. It is good for the Irish people and the House that the Green Party has entered Government, although I am not certain it is good for the party. I believe the party will act on our behalf while in Government.
The optimism of the Minister is also good, although he may be a little over-optimistic in his view that refrigerators, cars and so forth have a life of 15 years. Unfortunately, planned obsolescence is a concept we must attack because many items do not last for 15 years. With regard to cars, we should consider introducing a tax based on fuel consumption rather than engine size. I and many others have old cars. I walked to the House today, although I used to cycle here. Unfortunately, it has become too dangerous to cycle in Dublin, despite the fragmented cycle lanes.
Addressing these issues earlier today, Professor Frank Convery, a distinguished environmentalist, stated:
Setting targets on climate change and sustainability is painless, but meeting them requires putting in place the right policies; sufficient resources and well-motivated and functioning institutions at national, regional and local levels. To be effective, sustainable development policy must involve many Government Departments and agencies working together and must interact productively with stakeholders in business and the community.
Given the lack of communication we observed in a single area, the health service, it will be a major challenge to the Green Party to develop the type of networking approach required with Ministers from other parties.
I congratulate my colleague, Senator Ivana Bacik, on producing the Climate Protection Bill 2007. I will follow its progress with great interest. The Green Party will learn that there are harsh political realities, as might Senator Bacik, although she is very much a realist.
Ireland appears to be leading the field in wave energy. For example, some of the technical problems of harnessing the bobbing motion of waves have been solved by Irish scientists. This is a welcome development in which the Government should invest. I ask the Minister to examine a specific matter. During the debate on Senator Bacik's Bill, I handed a letter to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley. I ask his colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, to ensure the issue is followed up. The letter was written by individuals with whom I have had contact in Cyprus and Switzerland who have developed an interesting and sophisticated high frequency ignition system which will save considerable amounts of fuel. I ask that the Government investigate this technology with a view to possibly investing in it or assisting its development. Will the Minister give an undertaking to have the system assessed? In this regard, I am pleased that a large company, Dodge motors, has today announced the launch of a new green car.
I ask the Government to ensure that the media and certain political sources lay off the Shell to Sea group, whose campaign is perfectly right. I am one of the old-fashioned pinkos who believe we should own the wealth of the country and the means of production and distribution. We should take control of our resources, which may increase as we drill deeper under the Atlantic Ocean.

Order of Business - 7th November 2007

Order of Business – 7th November 2007
Senator David Norris: I join with Senator Fitzgerald and others who commented on the tragic situation of the women who attended Portlaoise hospital. I do not know at what rate such machinery goes out of date or whether 15 years is excessive, but it is intolerable that we might have equipment that does not function properly because it is dirty. There is a serious issue of cleanliness and hygiene throughout the hospital system and a problem with management. Management did not address the issue because if it did so, it would have led to expenditure.

There is plenty of expenditure for managers but, in the interests of patients, there also should be expenditure for services and equipment.
On 18 October, I raised the fact that the Defamation Bill was being introduced on Committee Stage rather than on Second Stage. At the time, the Leader, Senator Donie Cassidy, said it would be sensible to reintroduce the Defamation Bill on Second Stage as 35 of the 60 Members of the Seanad are new since the Bill was previously discussed on Second Stage. Does the Government propose to be sensible, as Senator Cassidy said, or does it propose to be foolish as newspaper proprietors would wish?

A Senator: Foolish.

Senator David Norris: Can we have a debate on rendition, perhaps when the Irish Human Rights Commission issues its report on that subject? I understand the report will be very damaging. The head of the commission, former Senator Maurice Manning, is a pretty restrained person with a distinguished record in this House. He indicated that the Government had been trying to interfere with this report and that if it continued to do so it would have "a bloody fight on their hands". The commission has been infuriated by the Government's attempts to soften what may well be a damning report on rendition. It will confirm what people, especially those on this side of the House, have had to say about the subject.
Perhaps we can examine an issue of concern which was revealed in the The Sunday Tribune last weekend under the heading "Gardaí remove non-EU students from school". If this report is correct, it is an astonishing thing to have the country's police force entering the education system. The report stated: "Several school principals in Dublin's inner city have been contacted by the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB) in the last six months and told that some of their students will have to cease attending immediately, regardless of what stage they are at in their education." The principals in these schools are outraged by this.
It would be appropriate if at some stage we paid tribute to the extraordinary work of Nuala O'Loan who has just retired as Police Ombudsman in the North of Ireland.

Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator David Norris: She carried through this extraordinarily difficult task - being attacked sometimes from both sides simultaneously - with grace, dignity and professionalism. I hope the person who succeeds her will exhibit the same qualities.

Order of Business - 1st November 2007

Order of Business - 1st November 2007
I agree with Senator Fitzgerald that the question of child care is an urgent matter. We have debated it in the House previously. It is especially important in the light of the very considerable costs incurred by parents allied to the fact that we now know that quite a number of crèches are completely unsuitable and do not appear to be good value for money. I disagree slightly with the Senator, however, when she describes her constituency as Clondalkin. It is not; it is several hundred county councillors. It may well be that your constituency will be Clondalkin in the future.

Senator Michael McCarthy: On a point of order, the Senator is addressing another Senator directly rather than commenting through the Chair.

Senator David Norris: It is nice to see that on this side of the House, there is a degree of harmony between the two principal parties. Senator McCarthy's constituency is the same as that of Senator Fitzgerald, so he must suck up to councillors-----

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should confine himself to the Order of Business.

Senator David Norris: We must also address another subject that has been raised in this House previously, namely, the extraordinary impact of alcohol consumption on society. Figures were released today which indicate that Ireland is nearly top of the table in terms of alcohol consumption which has increased alarmingly, particularly among young people.
The principal point I wish to raise is the question of what occurred in the Dáil yesterday and its impact on our legislative programme. The Labour Party put forward its Civil Unions Bill. I experienced a sense of déjà vu and great sadness. It is now four years since I put on the Order Paper of this House the Civil Partnership Bill. Had the Government acted then to support what is a reasonable measure which does not claim marriage, we would now have this law enacted.
The spectre of unconstitutionality has been raised, which is rubbish. Nobody really believes it. That is a creation of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, or as I prefer to call it, the Department of discrimination. The discrimination is emanating from that Department and, unfortunately, we have a decent man, who is well on the way to becoming the Minister for discrimination, in violation of the position adopted in this House by a former Fianna Fáil Minister and Deputy, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn.

I recall her saying that she, as a Cabinet Minister, would require clear, cogent and factual reasons to introduce discrimination against a citizen.
I have listened to people in this House and in the other one compare the degree of recognition which I would get to somebody with a pet, to a couple of nuns and to a couple of elderly sisters. I repeat what I said yesterday that I am not prepared to accept a dog licence. I am not a second-class citizen, nor will I remain so.

An Cathaoirleach: Is the Senator calling for the introduction of the Bill?

Senator David Norris: I hold up a heavy weight of five folders each with individual sheets and each sheet containing an agonised plea to me about certain aspects of this Bill, especially about Irish citizens in relationships with non-EU citizens. I call on the Government to get off its backside and do something about it. I am not prepared to wait.
Will the Leader give Government time before Christmas to take the Civil Partnership Bill 2004 in my name? If we had done this in 2004, it could easily have been tested. There is a mechanism. We can refer a Bill to the Supreme Court. We are not concerned about constitutionality or protecting the family.
I greatly resent what the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, said in the Dáil yesterday that the constitutional aspect involved a possible attack on the family. I say very clearly to all my colleagues in this House that granting me a minimum amount of decency, which almost every other country in Europe has granted, cannot be constituted as an attack on the family. How dare anyone say that to a decent upright citizen such as me and the many thousands of gay people who have lived in servitude for the past 60 years, of which the republican party should be thoroughly ashamed.
Senator John Hanafin: I support the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, in his decision to rule out gay marriage because it is in conflict with the Constitution and I look forward to the civil partnership Bill. I am reminded of a story told about Sir Thomas More, whose son constantly asked him to do something about a man with whom he had a problem. Sir Thomas More asked his son whether his problem was to do with something against the law of man or the law of God. His son replied it was against the law of God and Sir Thomas More advised him to let God deal with it. However, Sir Thomas More was subsequently asked to recognise the marriage of Henry VIII and therein lies the difference. We are being asked to recognise gay marriage, something I am not prepared to do. What people do in their own homes is one thing; I may not agree with it but that is their own business-----

Senator David Norris: How very generous of Senator Hanafin.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Hanafin without interruption.

Senator John Hanafin: However, when I am asked to call it a marriage, that is something I am not prepared to do.

Senator David Norris: Nobody cares what Senator Hanafin calls it.

An Cathaoirleach: I ask Senator Norris to respect other speakers. He has already made his contribution.

Senator David Norris: I am tired of being insulted in this House and having the tissue of religion used hypocritically to put me in a second class place and I am not a second class citizen in this country and I will not be a second class citizen. That is rubbish from Senator Hanafin. On the few occasions he speaks it is to blackguard people like me.

Adjournment Debate on the Issue of Citizenship - 31st October 2007

Adjournment Debate on the Issue of Citizenship - 31st October 2007

Senator David Norris: The Minister of State is very welcome back to the House. This matter concerns a citizenship application, which is currently a troubled area, with 17,000 people in the queue awaiting citizenship. On average, every application takes about 30 months. That is a broad picture.
Within this picture there are certain particular anomalies. We are told today that a function of politicians is to address anomalies and eradicate them. This was done extremely speedily in the case of Deputy Michael Woods, a former Minister. We were very quick to address that anomaly and I hope we will be just as quick to address this. I will put it theoretically before the House and then outline the particular case.
In order to apply for Irish citizenship, an applicant requires at least 60 months of what is termed "reckonable residence" in Ireland over the past five years.

The period when a foreign national is resident in Ireland on a student visa is not regarded as reckonable residence. When the Bill covering this was going this House, I remember the reason given for that provision was fair enough. The authorities were concerned that people - I believe it was Chinese people in particular although not only Chinese but other nationalities - would come here, attend fly by night language schools and use such time spent as a justification for building up the time required to qualify for citizenship. This was seen as a back door approach and not strictly honourable. The authorities wanted to clamp down on that.
The exclusion of time on a student visa from reckonable residence calculation creates an unfair situation in certain cases. I will outline the case in question. For example, if a foreign national comes to Ireland as a minor with his or her foreign parents or guardians, he or she is resident here as a dependant and has no choice in the matter. This period as a dependant counts as reckonable residence. However, once a person turns 18 and goes on to third level education, he or she is resident here on a student visa and such time is excluded from reckonable residence.
The results of the exclusion of student visa time from the reckonable residence calculations are, first, that the person would need to stay up to eight or nine years before he or she could apply for citizenship. Then he or she would experience about a three-year delay before possibly getting citizenship. That means that a person would have to wait 11 to 13 years in total for citizenship. Second, after completing third level education, he or she would only be able to remain in Ireland on a work permit. There is no certainty that the person would get such a permit. Thus, a person who comes to Ireland, puts down roots here and becomes integrated into Irish society may not be able to continue to live here after being here for up to seven or eight years. That is manifestly unfair.
The policy of excluding student visa time from the residence calculation is to stop people who come here as students deliberately remaining until they have reached the six-month period required, but this is not the case in the anomaly to which I referred. I ask that there should be a change of policy not only in this case but generally to provide that time spent here on a student visa should count as reckonable residence if the applicant comes to Ireland as a dependant minor of a non-national parent or guardian and legitimately remains here during his or her dependent and student periods.
The particular case I wish to raise concerns a South African man who was head-hunted by the Government. Its officials actively recruited him in 2001 in South Africa and brought him over here to work for An Bord Pleanála as a planning inspector. He arrived here in August 2001 and was seconded to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government as a planning inspector. His legal status is that he is here with a work authorisation visa. He came to Ireland with his wife and youngest daughter.
His daughter went straight into transition year in a secondary school near where they live. She finished her leaving certificate in 2004, completed a year at post leaving certificate level in Inchicore College and then started a three-year veterinary nursing diploma course at UCD. Recently she got her results and passed all her second year subjects. It is a requirement of the course that students work for at least a certain number of hours each week in a veterinary practice. For the past two years she has held a part-time veterinary nursing position in a local surgery.
Having all been here together with the same status for five years, they applied together in November 2006 for Irish citizenship. They got a response from the Irish Nationalisation and Immigration Service regarding their applications. In the case of the man who was head-hunted, there is no difficulty. He is sailing through, if one could call it that, and is on the right track even though the procedure is extraordinarily slow. While his application is being processed, it will take the usual 30 months to process and the officials are only examining the applications lodged in 2005. If all goes well, it will have taken three years for his application to be processed, which is what tends to happen in such cases. As the man said, it is hardly greased lightning but they can live with it.
In his wife's case, the authorities have discounted the nine months from the time the family arrived until the time in 2002 when her passport was stolen. They seem to be incapable of having the machinery to investigate the fact that her passport was stolen. It was perfectly well known that she was here with her husband as his wife and living in the family home, he having been recruited by the authorities in this land. This means that she does not have the length of time here to qualify to make an application.
The worst aspect is the daughter's position. The Nationalisation and Immigration Service has discounted all the time for reckonable residence since she left secondary school, in other words the period she studied in Inchicore College and in UCD. This means that in practice she cannot get the required 60 months reckonable residence in the near or even medium term future. It appears it is Government policy not to include time spent studying at tertiary level when totting up the time legitimately spent in Ireland, even when the young person had no choice. She was brought here as part of a family unit and did most of her schooling here. At the end of this system she has been told she does not have the required period to qualify. She will have to wait for 11 to 13 years. If this position is not rectified, this girl will have to leave this jurisdiction in a few months' time.
This is a complete nonsense and a farce. It is, as the former Minister, Deputy Woods, might term it, an anomaly. It needs to be rectified. Deputy Woods indicated that we as politicians are here to rectify anomalies. We head-hunted this man and brought him to this country with his family. We had difficulties with his wife's application and could not understand how in holy Catholic Ireland a passport could be stolen and the implications of that. His daughter is here but the authorities do not calculate any of the time she has spent here as reckonable residence because she was a student. The provision in the legislation is perhaps understandable in the case of people who are not bona fide students, but in the case of this person, something should be done.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator has made the case well.

Senator David Norris: I could list all the distinguished posts this man has held, the work he has done and the way in which we were proud to have him representing us at international level, but from a party and Government that is everlastingly caterwauling about family values, the family and all the rest of it, it is a bit thick that they should have no concept of the family as it affects this person.

Deputy Jimmy Devins: I thank Senator Norris for raising this matter. I am replying on behalf of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, who is otherwise occupied.
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. These conditions are that the applicant must be of full age or by way of exception be a minor born in the State; be of good character; have had a period of one year's continuous residency in the State immediately before the date of the application and, during the eight years immediately preceding that period, have had a total residence in the State amounting to four years; intend in good faith to continue to reside in the State after naturalisation; and have made, 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 fully completed. 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 also be necessary.
Since this procedure was introduced on 1 April 2005, more than 1,500 applicants have been found to have had insufficient residency in the State for the purposes of naturalisation.

All such applicants are informed of any shortfall in their residency and will be able to re-apply when they are in a position to satisfy the residency requirements of the aforementioned Act.
Applications for certificates of naturalisation from the three persons referred to by Senator Norris were received in the citizenship section of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on 20 December 2006 and acknowledgements of said applications were issued to the applicants on 2 January 2007. The first named applicant, whom I will refer to as the "husband" entered the State on 5 September 2001 and registered with the immigration authorities in Wicklow where he was given the permission of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to remain in the State for two years. He renewed this permission in November 2003, allowing him to remain until August 2005. He further renewed the permission in September 2005 giving him permission to remain until August 2007. These various permissions were identified from stamps in his national passport. At the time of lodging his application for a certificate of naturalisation in December 2006, he had accumulated a period of 62 months reckonable residency and his application was therefore deemed eligible. The individual concerned was informed in May 2007 that his application was being placed in chronological order and it was likely that it would be processed in approximately 30 months.
The second named applicant, whom I shall refer to as the "daughter", similarly entered the State in September 2001. As she was 16 years of age at the time of entry, she was obliged to register with the Garda immigration authorities which she duly did. She was given the permission of the Minister to remain unconditionally in the State until June 2004. However, in August 2004 she was given a stamp 2, which is issued to non-nationals who are pursuing a course of study, which extended to June 2006.
As stated previously, periods of permission granted for the purposes of study are not recognised in the calculation of periods of residence in an application for naturalisation. In addition, the individual concerned did not have a period of one year's continuous residence in the State immediately before the date of her application as is required by legislation. In accordance with these statutory provisions the application was deemed ineligible and this decision was communicated to her on 30 May 2007. The individual was, however, invited to submit a new application when she is in a position to meet the statutory requirements of the Act.
The third named applicant, whom I shall refer to as the "wife", submitted her application at the same time as her husband and daughter. The documentation which she submitted with her application as evidence of her immigration history in the State indicated that her total reckonable residence in her application for a certificate of naturalisation amounted to 49 months, thereby rendering her 11 months short of the total requirement of 60 months.
This fact was communicated to her by the official who examined her case in May 2007. The lady in question wrote to the Department on 23 September 2007, providing further corroborative evidence from An Garda Síochána confirming that while for a period when she had no residency stamps on her passport as the passport had been stolen, she was in fact registered with the immigration authorities as being legally resident in the State for the period concerned. There was also a further deficit of two months legal residence but this shortfall was explained in that the individual moved from one county to another. There was subsequent confusion as to which Garda district should be responsible for her immigration registration. On foot of further corroborative evidence received on 23 September, officials in the citizenship section reviewed her application. They deemed that she did satisfy the statutory requirements pertaining to reckonable residency and have now re-instated her application alongside that of her husband. A letter will issue to her presently confirming this position.
Officials in the citizenship section of the Department are currently processing applications received at the beginning of 2005 and have approximately 11,200 cases to be processed before those of the individuals concerned. It is likely therefore that further processing of these applications will commence in the second half of 2009.
I hope I addressed the Senator's concerns about these individuals and have clearly demonstrated that correct procedures were applied at every stage of the process by departmental officials.

Senator David Norris: The Minister of State has most certainly not.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator must have a question.

Senator David Norris: Yes, you are right a Leas-Chathaoirligh, it is very questionable and I completely agree with you.

Deputy Jimmy Devins: Is the Senator allowed ask a second question?

Senator Cecilia Keaveney: The Senator is not allowed ask a second question.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: A long-standing practice of the House is to allow a supplementary question.

Senator David Norris: He is in charge here, not you, Minister.
The Minister of State hopes he has addressed my concerns. He most certainly has not. I am not blaming him personally. I am asking him to take this response back to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, a rather decent man, and inform him I am not satisfied with it. Apparently, the daughter is disposable. The officials who recruited this man were aware at all times of the family situation. They were recruited as a family but now the daughter is disposable. The Minister has accepted they were wrong about the wife. The Minister claims he has demonstrated that correct procedures were applied. Really? I remind the Minister correct procedures were applied in the case of Deputy Michael Woods and the Government rushed in an amendment to legislation to look after him.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Does the Senator have a question?

Senator David Norris: This man came from South Africa where they have this crude one-size-fits-all attitude to everything.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Does Senator Norris have a question?

Senator David Norris: It is inhuman what has happened to this family. I am ashamed that this can go on. I ask the Minister if State to take back this response and re-examine it. Can he not understand this is a family? The daughter has been educated and earned her degree, has a job and relationships in Ireland. They are prepared to accept the husband and let him have a wife but will not let him have a daughter. It is a disgrace.

Deputy Jimmy Devins: I will relay Senator Norris's question to the Minister in question.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Hear, hear.

Witness Protection Programme Bill 2007 - Second Stage Debate - 31st October 2007

Witness Protection Programme Bill 2007: Order for Second Stage. ^
31st October 2007

Senator David Norris: I commend the Labour Party on producing this Bill. This society faces a very serious situation which unknown when I was younger, and I am only 63 years of age. It is very important the Labour Party has taken this on. It is also important that it has very clearly taken into account the recommendations and views of the Supreme Court.
The Minister of State was a little dismissive of the Labour Party.

Deputy Seán Power: There is no nice way to say "no".

Senator David Norris: Why is the Minister of State saying "no"? Is it a partisan reason because this is what happens every bloody Wednesday in this House? Is it that the Government has really considered the substance of the Bill? I do not imagine it has really considered it.
I refer to some of the things the Minister of State said. He suggested that it was a tiny minority and that it was a very special few. That may very well be but they are there. Every week we see this. Only in the past few days a fellow in Limerick was sentenced for perjury. Having agreed to give evidence, he withdrew or changed it because he was terrified of his former associates. That man has been sent to jail despite the sympathy of the judge. This happened in the past couple of weeks. Let us not hear this is some kind of academic thing. It is real and very much part of the current situation. We have a problem where witnesses are very clearly intimidated.
We also have a situation where people are killed. It is now becoming a feature of gangland warfare in Dublin at least that if there is one of these murders - I will not call them killings or executions because they are cold blooded murders by hired assassins - and somebody happens to be present, that person is just dispatched as a witness. There has been a number of such cases. It is not just a question of intimidation. These people are ruthlessly prepared to cut down and exterminate civilians who are innocent of any involvement. The situation is very serious.
Witness protection programmes have existed in other countries and have been reasonably successful. There are great difficulties involved and I very much welcome that counselling and placements are considered in this Bill. Even if people go along with it, it is a hell of a wrench. People often return at great danger to themselves because they find it difficult to tear themselves away from their backgrounds. We have seen this in the North with both the republicans and loyalists.
It is important that the Labour Party has examined the question of plea bargaining because that could vitiate everything. If it was felt someone was being offered an inducement to give certain types of evidence, there is no doubt that would vitiate his or her evidence to an unacceptable degree.
I strongly support and commend the Labour Party in this regard. It is clear that the protection of witnesses should be undertaken in the public interest because they are being got at. It disturbs justice that people can be made retract or not give evidence at all. It is the rule of the jungle. What actions are the gardaí taking - I am not being critical of them but it is essential we get to the nub of the issue - to find those people who are perverting the course of justice by witness tampering? That used to be a very serious offence. I would like the law and Garda action strengthened in this regard.

Expressions of Sympathy on the Death of Joe Sherlock

Expressions of Sympathy on the Death of Joe Sherlock

Senator David Norris: It is rather sad in a way to say goodbye to Joe Sherlock. I, like the Leader, have happy memories of him in Leinster House. He was a good, committed, regular contributor in this House and he always had a twinkle in his eye. I seem to remember him smoking a pipe. Perhaps I am wrong but I have an image of him fiddling with the pipe with his eyes twinkling away while he made a sharp, perceptive comment. He was a man who was involved in the republican movement but he saw the light and opted for democratic politics. He was in Sinn Féin the Workers' Party and he was one of the architects of the move on the left that united the Workers Party and the Labour Party. Shortly after he was elected as both the first and only representative of Sinn Féin The Workers Party in 1981, he said he hoped there would be a realignment of the left and that both parties would work in closer harmony.
He was an honest, decent man of the soil. He started life as an agricultural labourer and he had a lovely, easy swing of a walk along the corridors of Leinster House that marked him as somebody from a rural background, as my own people were, and I always liked that about him. He was loyal to north Cork. He fought for Mallow hospital and the sugar beet industry in which he had been employed. He will be missed but he was extremely proud at the close of his political career that his son, Seán, was elected to succeed him. I met Seán recently in the corridors and I asked him whether he was one of the new Members. When he told me who he was, I was very pleased to shake his hand and say I remembered his father with great affection. He will be a distinguished representative.
When I told my colleagues in the office that we were having expressions of sympathy on the death of Joe Sherlock and I had been asked to say a few words about him, everybody, including the secretarial staff, commented on what a decent, nice man he was. That is a rather good tribute. On behalf of the Independent Members, I offer my sympathy to his wife, Ellen and his children, Úna, Joseph and Sean, who has followed him into the world of politics.

Statements on the Housing Market - 31st October 2007

Statements on the Housing Market – 31st October 2007

Senator David Norris: I think he will be cut down to three minutes. We have to keep the Shinners in their place.
This shows lamentable signs of turning into a fairly dreary debate. One of the reasons is that we are losing sight of the human issue and that housing is the single biggest expenditure for young people, either single or married. Previous speakers referred to affordable housing. Where is it? What is affordable? We are now in this range where people are expected to have a joint income of approximately €75,000 to qualify for affordable housing. The situation has become bizarre.
I would like to put a pointer down to the Minister of State on the issue of affordable housing. I know about it because two people close to me were involved. One of them managed to get a house. My partner, who is a nurse, is in the scheme. People are never told when a draw is happening or the result. Let us have a bit of honesty and openness. Why do we not know this? Why do people who have gone to the trouble of filling out and submitting forms not know when a draw takes place so that they know whether they have a house or whether they should look on the open market? One of the problems is that the margin between so-called affordable housing and the open market is narrowing. That is a very worrying trend, as is the fact this Government and its predecessor have allowed the building speculators to get away with murder and to buy their way out of the commitments given in respect of affordable housing. That is a pretty disgraceful attitude.
The root issue is the price of houses. I am now getting on in years. I am 63 years old and the first house I bought was €3,500, and it was a bloody good house. It was a four bedroom house in a nice suburb of Dublin. I am astonished by the situation now. It has all the hallmarks of a South Sea bubble and I have seen it going up and up. I can assure Members that what goes up must come down. I have no doubt whatever that there will be a fall. Government intervention is necessary to ensure as many people as possible have a reasonably soft landing.
I blame the banks which have gone out of their way to push loans on unsuspecting young people. Their advertisements are a disgrace. I have raised this issue before and would like the Minister of State to take it up in the context of broadcasting and the way they push advertisements for loans, money and this, that and the other. The health warnings are gabbled at a rate which makes them not understandable by the ordinary person. They are almost entirely inaudible. Those messages carry warnings because I have listened to them very carefully. As they required to do so, they say one may actually lose one's house. I do not know if other Senators have referred to it but we are now in a situation where there is a queue in the courts in the city for repossessions by the banks. The irresponsibility of the banks is further underlined by a series of occasions where solicitors have made multiple borrowings on the same property. Tens of millions of euro have been lost because the banks and other financial institutions were so greedy they could not even wait to check the bona fides of people.
In the past week or two, there was a very worrying report from Standard & Poor's which highlighted the risk to economic growth posed by vulnerable construction and property sectors in several European countries. The worst two countries were Spain and Ireland. It pointed out the risk of a much deeper deterioration in the property market as being quite high in Ireland. It suggested that it could push the economic indictors down to a 1% growth target for the year, which is very worrying. That was picked up by Garret FitzGerald a distinguished economic commentator and former Taoiseach. He concurs with this figure and that our growth could be cut to 1% if the downturn develops on a scale similar to that following the housing collapse in Britain where there was negative equity.

The same thing happened in Germany as part of the economic impact of reunification.
I refer to an interesting paper produced by Professor Morgan Kelly of the economics department of University College Dublin. The nub of his thesis is that, "looking at house price cycles across the OECD since 1970, we find a strong relationship between the size of the initial rise in price and its subsequent fall". That should be of concern to us because we have just had an enormous boom. If the fall is comparable, we may well be in difficulty.
Professor Kelly continues:
Were this relationship to hold for Ireland, it would predict falls of real house prices of 40 to 60 per cent over a period of 8 to 9 years. House price falls tend not to have serious macroeconomic consequences, but the unusually large size of the Irish house building industry suggests that any significant house price fall that does occur could impose a difficult adjustment on the economy.
He is taking a fairly positive view in suggesting that there is not necessarily an immediate and direct correlation between any house price collapse and the macroeconomic situation.
Professor Kelly believes that the economy's undue reliance on the building sector could make things difficult. He cites examples of international crises, mentioning that "the real price of Dutch houses fell by 50 per cent between 1979 and 1987, while the price of houses in Britain relative to real income also fell by 50 per cent between 1948 and 1957". He concludes that, "internationally, house prices boom and crash frequently, as economic theory predicts they should".
Professor Kelly then asks what triggers a house price collapse, which is a question the Minister of State has presumed to answer. The Minister of State has argued that we will be cushioned by the strength of other economic sectors. Professor Kelly mentions the damaging effect of being able to rent a house for less than the interest cost of a mortgage, for example. He also cites sentiment as a crucial factor. People get out of the market when they get fed up with it.

Markets in Financial Instruments and Misc. Provisions Bill 2007 - Committee and final stages - 31st October 2007

^ Markets in Financial Instruments and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2007:
Committee and Remaining Stages. – 31st October 2007

Senator David Norris: I am very sorry to see my old friend and colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, in the hot seat today because he is a thoroughly decent and honourable man. It cannot be a very happy day for him to stand over this squalid business. I also recognise what Senator Boyle said and I salute him for it. He has acknowledged the technical difficulties but he did not go as far as I would have liked into the morality of this because it is the morality which stinks. However, he has done the House a service by pointing out just how insidious this process was. The Green Party is a partner in Government and holds the No. 2 position. However, it was not consulted about this and it is important to state that on the record. It is very damaging.
What kind of Government is it when this kind of material is smuggled in? The reason the Green Party was not told is that it stinks. This is about a snout in the trough and I will label this the snout in the trough amendment. The Minister of State need not shake his head because that is precisely what it is. It is for one person who, as I said on the Order of Business, was so impoverished by circumstances that he did not even notice and apparently believes €37,000 is very little money. Some people live on a lot less than that. He is in receipt of more than €100,000 per annum from the other House and has just been given another €20,000 for being chair of the Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs. I have always had good relations with this gentleman. Perhaps we should address the fact one can get severance plus a pension while one is still serving and in receipt of an income. We are heading into choppy financial waters.

[Senator David Norris]
Is it any wonder people in this country have contempt for politicians? Look at the language of this section, which states:
"(9) On application for a pension under this section to the Minister for Finance, by a person whose entitlement to the pension arose on or after the date of commencement of this section, the pension is payable as of and from a date that the Minister for Finance may determine in writing that is—
(a) not earlier than the date of entitlement, and
(b) not later than the date of the application.
This is laughable. I asked on the Order of Business whether I was in Ireland, which is one little island, or the flying island of Laputa, described by Jonathan Swift as the place where they distilled moonshine from cucumbers. Is there any possibility one could, in one's wildest dreams, have granted a pension earlier than the date of entitlement? Alternatively, could one grant a pension later than the date of application? This is bizarre material and a complete disgrace.
We have been told a garda made a similar application and was denied so this provision has been made specifically for one senior member of Fianna Fáil. I also received a letter from a constituent, with which I will shame the Minister of State by putting it on the record. She writes:
I have just been informed by my local tax office that I am not entitled to a PAYE credit of €1,490 because I am an employee of my husband's business (section 472, Taxes Consolidation Act 1997). I work as a dental practice manager. My hours of work are Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., the same as all other employees in the business. I believe I am being discriminated against because of my marital status and this is grossly unfair. I am also not allowed to make PRSI contributions, for the same reason, and this means I have no social welfare entitlements, including sickness benefit, maternity, pension etc.
What about that woman's pension? She would be glad enough with €37,000. The former Minister does not need his pension but forgot all about it. It did not bother him and he did not notice it. In addition, he thinks it is for a small amount. If it is a small amount, let him give it to this woman.
I wonder what happened to Fianna Fáil, the people's party. It is a very bad day for this country when we pass special legislation in the interest of one Member of the other House. It is disgraceful. Hesitation has been expressed on the Government side so I will give them an opportunity to put that into practice by calling a vote on this section. I will also oppose the earlier signature motion this evening.
I wonder if President McAleese, who is a lawyer herself, will feel comfortable signing this nasty little fiddle. Any other citizen would be told that if they did not put in an application on time, they would be in trouble. I have just paid my preliminary tax and received a letter from my accountant saying it had to be in the post to arrive in Limerick by a certain date or I would be fined. I am an Independent Member and not part of the Government but could I, as a Member of the Oireachtas, get special legislation enacted to save me from the financial consequences of my carelessness or forgetfulness? I am completely against the snout in the trough phenomenon and I will vote against the snout in the trough amendment.

Senator John Hanafin: In supporting the Markets in Financial Instruments and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2007, and the section we are now discussing, I am conscious of the fact that a pension is not an arbitrary payment, nor a gift. A pension is an entitlement, based on deferred pay. It belongs to the person who has paid his or her contributions.

Senator David Norris: It is a gift now.

Senator John Hanafin: Without interruption, Senator Norris.

Senator David Norris: I will interrupt any time I like. Senator Hanafin is not in the Chair.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Hanafin without interruption.

Senator John Hanafin: I am entitled to speak without interruption.

Senator David Norris: Everybody is interrupted. I have even been interrupted myself.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Hanafin without interruption.

Senator John Hanafin: A pension is deferred pay and that is a fact of life. It belongs to that person. We are dealing with one section of the Bill which relates to a former Minister and other people who might find themselves in that situation. Notwithstanding that, it behoves us to look at all sections to ensure that people who might miss out do not do so. It is wrong to point the finger at this person. I believe people should have all their entitlements and we should look at the issue because such people have worked for their pension and deferred their pay during their working life to make provision for when they retire or no longer do the job in question. In the future, if people have certain entitlements they should be given a letter from the Department to advise them to apply within a certain date or their circumstances could become very difficult.
We owe the press a service for pointing out this matter. The issue must be dealt with across the board to ensure equity because to prevent one person from getting a pension is wrong. It has given us an opportunity to ensure equity across the board. The Opposition has quite rightly spoken on behalf of a civil servant who lost certain rights but on Second Stage the Opposition did not even speak to the Bill. Not only that, a Senator who has spoken on behalf of civil servants today called certain civil servants liars on the last occasion he spoke. That took me by surprise because in the years I have been in this House, I have rarely heard anybody called a liar. It ill became the Member to call civil servants liars on that occasion.

Senator Liam Twomey: On a point of order, I did not, as Senator Hanafin suggested, call civil servants liars. I believe it might be the politicians in Government who are not telling the truth on this issue. I have doubts about it as I cannot prove the allegations but that is the way this Government works.

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: The Senator can, however, besmirch innocent people and has no problem in doing so. Nor does his party.

Senator Liam Twomey: I remember dealing with the illegal nursing home charges and the Travers report dealing with billions of euro of taxpayers' money which was lost-----

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: That is not a point of order.

Senator David Norris: Senator Twomey without interruption.

Senator Liam Twomey: My point of order was raised to correct the Senator and put on record that I referred to politicians and not civil servants. I believe civil servants are far more likely to tell the truth than the shower running this country.

Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.

Senator John Hanafin: The Senator proves my point by saying he has no proof but still calls people liars. That is disgraceful.

Senator Liam Twomey: Senator Hanafin should get on his high horse about something which might actually matter.

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: The Tánaiste and Minister for Finance is at an important Government meeting. The Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Noel Ahern, is at an official function so I am delighted to have the opportunity to deal with this issue-----

Senator David Norris: The Minister of State is not delighted to be here. That is why he is telling us the other Ministers are elsewhere. The Minister of State would rather be anywhere else.

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: -----and to deal with it on a logical and truthful basis. The provision brings payment to Ministers into line with civil and public servants who make late applications for a preserved pension. Whether or not an individual case arose, ministerial pensions must be brought into line, irrespective of whether they make a late application, in the same way senior civil servants, to whom we are aligned, can take up a pension if they apply late.
I will deal with a number of issues that have arisen. One concerns the application by the former Minister. It is important to put on record the fact that arrears of pension for the period in question would amount to approximately €75,000, as against the €500,000 which has been touted in the media. A person who is still serving receives an abated pension. It is a two-year issue that is at stake in this instance. I want to comment on some of the terms which have been used during the debate on this case. Words like "morality" and "sneakiness" have been used.

Senator David Norris: Snout in the trough.

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: Yes. When the former Minister made an application to the officials in the Department of Finance, it became obvious to them that there is an anomaly in the system as it relates to Ministers, as opposed to public and civil servants. The departmental officials recommended to the Minister for Finance that the anomaly should be rectified. The recommendation did not come from the Minister for Finance. The former Minister did not make representations to the Minister for Finance in his own case - that is a fact.
I would like to speak about the subject of transparency as it relates to the issue that has arisen. It is clearly stated in the supplementary information that accompanies the Bill that this is the issue in question. When this issue was being dealt with in the Dáil, Deputy Burton asked whether it applies-----

Senator David Norris: On a point of order, can I ask the Minister of State to help the House by placing on the record the exact words from the explanatory memorandum to which he refers?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: That is not a point of order.

Senator David Norris: If it is not, I ask the Minister of State to quote from the relevant section anyway.

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: It is mentioned in the explanatory memorandum.

Senator David Norris: Can we have the words? When I looked for the Bill, we had to send off all over the House to get it. There is no sign of the explanatory memorandum.

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: If the Senator gets the memorandum, he will find that the reference I have mentioned is in it. I have lost my train of thought.

Senator David Norris: I am sorry.

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: It is important to note that this issue arose during the debate in the Dáil. If my memory serves me correctly, it was raised by Deputy Burton. When she asked the Minister for Finance if these provisions apply to any former Minister, he specifically said that they do. When Deputy Bruton was asked about this issue yesterday, he acknowledged that it had been discussed in the Dáil. Therefore, I can state categorically that nobody was trying to hide this issue. It was a matter of public knowledge. When Deputy Bruton was interviewed yesterday, he acknowledged that the issue had been debated in the Dáil. There is nothing underhand about it at all.
If a serving Minister makes a late application for a pension, he should be entitled to receive it, just like all other public servants, including the senior civil servants to whom Ministers are aligned in all aspects of these matters. It was agreed by both Houses that the pay and pension rights of Ministers, including pay increases, should be aligned with those of senior civil servants. This measure extends those rights to provide for late applications. Nothing underhand is going on. This is very much above board. Other than those who are taking issue with this proposal because they want to make political fare from it, everybody acknowledges that the former Minister in this case is entitled to equity and should be given his full pension entitlements, even though he made a late application.

Senator David Norris: The Minister of State's coalition partners seem to be a bit queasy.

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: A number of other issues were raised. Senator Boyle suggested that this issue could be dealt with in the forthcoming finance Bill. However, it could not be addressed in that Bill because it has the status of a money Bill. Other Senators argued that this measure should not be attached to this legislation at all. Given that some other issues are dealt with in the miscellaneous provisions section of the Bill, it is appropriate to resolve this anomaly in this legislation as well. It would hardly have been worthwhile to introduce a separate Bill to cover this issue on its own, when certain supplementary issues were being addressed as part of this legislation. The Minister for Finance has acted with absolute probity and transparency in everything he has done in this instance. Equity is being applied to a former Minister in line with the guidelines covering all other public and civil servants.

Senator Fiona O'Malley: I thank the Minister of State for clarifying a few issues. I am not certain about one thing. The Minister of State indicated that this proposal will bring the rules relating to ministerial pensions into line with the current practices for senior civil and public servants. We heard earlier today about the case of a former senior Garda inspector. I am worried about the distinction that has been drawn. I presume that discretion will be the order of the day here. While I am comforted somewhat by the Minister of State's comments, he has not stated directly that an existing anomaly is being corrected, although he has implied it. I do not like the fact that a senior public servant will not benefit, or be given an advantage, in the same manner as the former Minister in this case.

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: He has already benefitted.

Senator Fiona O'Malley: He was denied a backdated pension.

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: If a late application for a pension entitlement is made by a public or civil servant, he or she is entitled to get the full benefit of the pension. In this Bill, the Minister for Finance is regulating to ensure that the same thing that applies to civil and public servants also applies to any Minister.

Senator Fiona O'Malley: What about ordinary citizens? What happens to them when they miss deadlines?

Senator Alan Kelly: What about the ordinary garda?

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: I can deal only with matters relating to the Minister for Finance. If the Senators want to take up these issues directly with the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, they are welcome to do so. I will address the issues which were raised in respect of the garda, if Senators would like me to do so.

Senator Liam Twomey: Yes.

Senator David Norris: What about the issue I raised?

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: The former Minister's case is not comparable to the case of the garda that was highlighted in a newspaper article today. The garda in question was dismissed from the force in 1973. At that time, forfeiture of superannuation benefits applied in the case of dismissal. Preservation did not become a feature of the Garda Síochána superannuation scheme until October 1976. Under the terms of the scheme, therefore, the garda in question does not have any superannuation entitlements.

Senator Fiona O'Malley: I have not quite finished. The Minister of State suggested in his reply that it is not necessary to deal with this matter today, which is something that was also inferred by Senator Boyle. We need to make progress with the Bill, but that could be done even if this section were to be withdrawn. I do not want to put ideas into Senator Boyle's head, but I am interested in the notion that this proposal could be withdrawn and discussed at a later stage. The Senator made the very good point that it could be considered in the context of the Green Paper on pensions. Would that be appropriate? Surely there are currently no time constraints in the case of the individual. Is the individual getting any money as things stand? Would the Minister of State consider withdrawing this section of the Bill?

Senator David Norris: Hear, hear

Senator Fiona O'Malley: He could allow the rest of the Bill to go forward and deal with this matter at some future time.

Senator Liam Twomey: I asked the Minister of State to explain the motivation behind this proposal and to outline how this section found its way into the Bill. The Minister of State's comments about the finance Bill were right, but the provision relating to ministerial pensions could be included in the forthcoming social welfare Bill. Perhaps it would not sit easily with the Government to include in that Bill, which will probably provide for social welfare increases of €10 or €12, a measure facilitating the payment of a pension of €30,000 to a sitting Government Deputy who is earning more than €120,000 per annum.
Senator David Norris: I wish to join with other colleagues who have paid tribute to investigative journalism in this case because these journalists have done us all a considerable service. Colleagues will know that I was quite critical of the newspaper industry in the context of the defamation Bill. Many Senators did not have the courage to say very much because they were afraid of the power of the newspapers but I am not afraid of them. However, this instance shows there can be good investigative journalism and it happened without the passage of the defamation Bill or anything like it. This was a case of good investigative journalism. On the issue of the defamation Bill, I challenge the Minister of State to provide an example where investigative journalism was stifled because I do not know of a single instance.
I refer to the explanatory memorandum to the Bill which is as clear as mud. One would need one's attention drawn to this provision. I agree that technically the Government is covered, but it is opaque. I draw the attention of the Minister of State to the fact that his two junior partners in coalition are of the same view. They made it clear.

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: They changed the mind of one of my partners when she found out the true facts.

Senator David Norris: We have all seen horses getting close to the water but they can be a little bit reluctant to drink; there is a little bit of political hydrophobia hanging around this House. At least she came to the brink of the trough.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Jimmy O'Dea will never be dead.

Senator David Norris: Perhaps it is a good thing she did not shove the snout in because there are plenty of people around here who, at any available trough, whether it contains water or money, will shove their old snouts in for a good snuffle, hoping there will be dollars in it.
I refer to the former Minister, the former Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, for which he receives a payment of €20,000. We should all be grateful because he did us all a favour, letting the Church off with a couple of hundred million euro and sticking the taxpayer with that amount. We should all be delighted and grateful. I am also grateful for the Minister's clarification of the amount which is €75,000. This is a small amount, a flea bite, according to the Minister.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: It is not a small amount.

Senator David Norris: What we are doing today is shabby. It was an attempt to slip this provision in by sleight of hand and I am very unhappy. I have made the point and others could produce dozens of examples of the anomaly between the way in which a Minister is treated compared with an ordinary citizen. I thought this country was a republic but it is obvious we have an aristocracy which behaves as if it were in the days before the French Revolution.
I have never exchanged a cross word with the Minister involved. I have no problem with him but I have a terrible problem with slyness and greed. I heard him remark that when one discovers anomalies in the law, one rectifies them. We all know this is not the case and it is not true. When the time comes for the budget, submissions are made by groups representing the disabled, the blind, cystic fibrosis sufferers and so on. I refer to Susie Long, who died because she was sentenced to death for the crime of poverty, as I stated six months ago. This was an anomaly in the health service but we did not rush. It was not just a question of €75,000 here or there or a small sum of €35,000 which we did not notice until two years later; this was a question of life or death. It is not correct to say that we as legislators have shown anything like the same alacrity in ironing out the anomalies that arise when they affect ordinary people but when they affect one of our own, my God, there is a sudden rush of draftsmanship and the introduction of legislation.
This section should be withdrawn for further discussion and I ask the Minister of State to do so.

Senator David Norris: I am afraid this is getting sleazier and sleazier. We are now told from the Government side that the Opposition in the Dáil was asleep on the job, that its forensic skills were not up to it and that it was not wide awake.

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: Senators were told anything but. The Opposition was wide awake and raised the issue.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Norris without interruption.

Senator David Norris: The Minister of State should check the record. I am not saying the Minister of State said it. He should check the record. That was said by a spokesperson for the Government on the other side of the House. I made notes of it. The Minister of State cannot challenge it. It is on the record.

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: I made it quite clear they were awake.

Senator David Norris: The Minister of State may have. I have said he is a decent person who would like to be anywhere but where he is at the moment, for which I do not blame him.

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: I was giving the Opposition credit.

Senator David Norris: A speaker on the Government Front Bench less than five minutes ago said the Opposition in the Dáil was asleep, its forensic skills were not up to it and it was not wide awake. That tells us that the Government was doing its damnedest to slip something by. It is obvious. We are not complete eejits in this House, whatever about the other place. I have managed with great difficulty to locate the explanatory memorandum, which states:
Section 16 amends the Ministerial pensions legislation. Currently, a pension is payable if the former office holder applies for it within six months of becoming eligible for it; otherwise, it is payable from the date of application [that is the present state]. This amendment will allow for payment to be backdated to a date not earlier than the date of entitlement.
How, for God Almighty's sake, could it be backdated before the date of entitlement? There may be some arcane reason for it that I do not understand. It is clear that the Government is making a special case to backdate a pension that was not applied for. The explanatory memorandum continues:
It also brings the qualifying requirements for a Ministerial pension under the ''old'' (i.e. pre-1993) pension scheme into line with the provisions of the current pension scheme. In effect, it provides for payment of a Ministerial pension to a member of the pre-1993 scheme who has more than two years service as a Minister. This has been the position for members of the current scheme since 2001.
That is a separate item. There is an attempt to blur that by running the two together in what is being said from the Government side. It was interesting to hear the Leader of the House, Senator Donie Cassidy, trying another little rub that will show on the sleaze indicator. He said to the Opposition: "Ask your own crowd. Were they the only ones? Ask your own crowd". In other words, there might be a bit left in the trough for a few Opposition snouts to get to work on. That is the kind of politics we are at. He appears to be laughing at the fact that the Opposition did not notice it going through. It was the Opposition's fault. It was asleep on the job, it did not have the forensic skills and asked the wrong questions. However, he suggests not doing anything about it because there is a bit of gravy left in the trough for the Opposition Members to snuffle around in. I do not regard that as very elevated morality, but who am I?

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: I reiterate that there is absolutely no sleight of hand. There are a number of miscellaneous provisions in the Bill including this one. On Second Stage the Tánaiste stated:
Section 16 makes amendments to the provisions dealing with ministerial pensions, as follows. First, former office holders - Ministers and Ministers of State - on leaving service are entitled to receive severance for up to two years. Circumstances can arise where, through oversight or otherwise, a former officer holder does not apply for the pension within the specified time period, namely, within six months of severance payments ending. The amendment would give the Minister for Finance the discretion to backdate the payment of pension in the case of an application made outside the six-month limit to the date of entitlement and reflects a similar provision which applies to Civil Service pensions.
In effect-----

Senator David Norris: Does it apply to Irish Shipping?

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: -----the Senator is accusing the audience - thanks be to God we are denuded of an audience - of being dumb, which I would never say.

Senator David Norris: That is very interesting. The Minister of State has said that thanks be to God there is nobody present in the Visitors Gallery and the public does not know about this measure. That is the way he would like to keep it.

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: The Senator said that this is getting murkier and murkier. I read out the chronology of events, which is apparent and open. The Tánaiste and Minister for Finance in everything he did was absolutely above board. He read it into the record of the House. It is included in the Bill itself. It was raised in the Dáil. It was dealt with and answered in a positive way by saying that a former Minister is affected.

Senator David Norris: Why is the Minister of State glad the Visitors Gallery is empty?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Minister of State without interruption.

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: There is no sleight of hand here. It is as transparent as could be. I am astonished that the Senator, the upholder of rights, on this occasion would deny the right to a politician because he is a politician.

Senator David Norris: Break my heart.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Minister of State without interruption.

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: That is exactly what he is saying.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Minister of State is wrong.

Senator David Norris: I have heard everything now.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Senator Norris did not say that.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The question is that section 16-----

Senator Liam Twomey: None of our questions has been answered. I asked if any other anomalies are floating around the Department of Finance.

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe: We are not aware of any other comparable anomaly in the Department at the moment. The garda case is not a similar case in any circumstances.

Senator Liam Twomey: There is considerable correspondence.

(Interruptions).

Question put.

Order of Business - 31st October 2007

Order of Business - 31st October 2007
Senator David Norris: I seek guidance from the Chair - I am afraid I am rather confused. Where am I? Am I on a little island called Ireland or am I, as I increasingly suspect, on the flying island of Laputa, described by the late Dean Jonathan Swift in Gulliver's Travels? I ask partly because of the matter raised by Senator Fitzgerald. The Markets in Financial Instruments and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2007, which will be considered by this House later today, seemed innocuous - we thought it would not do any great harm. However, a measure has been slipped into the Bill, with wonderfully sly sleight of political hand, to assist one of our own. I accept that the former Minister, Deputy Woods, is so distressed by poverty that he overlooked the fact that he had not claimed his pension for two years - one can quite understand that, just as one can understand the eagerness of the Irish taxpayer to reward the person who saved the Roman Catholic Church hundreds of millions of euro, at the expense of taxpayers. It is inevitable that this country's grateful taxpayers are keen to contribute to the former Minister. I have in my possession a letter that was sent to me by a constituent - a humble worker in a dental practice - who has been disbarred for receiving social welfare provisions, such as a pension, because she is employed by her husband. I wonder how she feels this morning.

An Cathaoirleach: That Bill-----

Senator David Norris: When I heard this morning that the Health Service Executive is in a state of distraction and paralysis over the significant question of how many electricians it takes to change a light bulb, I wondered again whether this is the flying island of Laputa or just a bad joke. I understand that a garda will be made privy to these special provisions. We know that gardaí are unusual people because we have discovered that a garda who ran over somebody at 4.30 a.m., having consumed, on his own admission, three pints of stout and at least two bottles, was then taken 14.5 miles by his colleagues to be breathalysed by them and found not to be over the limit. Gardaí need extra pensions because they are very unusual people.

An Cathaoirleach: This is the Order of Business. Are you seeking a debate-----

Senator David Norris: Yes.

An Cathaoirleach: -----or making a speech on the matter?

Senator David Norris: I would not dream of making a speech.

An Cathaoirleach: You could have fooled me.

Senator David Norris: Can the Chair tell me where I am? Is this Laputa or is it Ireland?
Assuming from the Cathaoirleach's expression that it is Ireland, may I raise one other matter? I understand from radio reports that the Labour Party intends to introduce a civil unions Bill in the other House later today. I salute the Labour Party for doing so. I listened to the debate on the radio and I hope we have a better debate in the Oireachtas. I will re-introduce my Bill. I was disgusted to hear one of the contributors to the radio debate, Mr. Quinn, refer to the protection of marriage when saying that historically, certain provisions had been in place to protect the wives and husbands of people who died. That is a downright lie.

An Cathaoirleach: Sorry-----

Senator David Norris: My mother was in this situation after my father died when I was six years of age. My mother got no pension because it was my father who died. If my mother had died, my father would have got a pension. I want the lie that was put out on the air - that the law was introduced to protect spouses - to be withdrawn.

It was put out on the air that this is to protect the spouses but it is no such thing; it is sheer prejudice. I really resent what was said and I must put this on the record of the House-----

An Cathaoirleach: I do not want the Senator to name anyone who is not here to defend him or her self.

Senator David Norris: I will table this matter as an amendment to the Order of Business. I propose an amendment to the Order of Business that the Civil Partnership Bill 2004 be taken.
In support of my argument, I remind the House that I am a member of a family which was here when St. Patrick arrived on the island. I am pretty Irish and I do not need to be lectured about Irishness by anybody as to what is and is not Irish. I am not going to be defined as having second-class citizenship by any person, Member of this House, the other House or the Irish public or told that my relationships, if they are dignified by law, are going to be put by the likes of Deputy Martin Mansergh and Senators in this House at the level of a dog licence. If to teach people that I will not accept this and that I will get full citizenship eventually-----

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris-----

Senator David Norris: -----I will take another trip to Europe if that is necessary. I am signalling to the House that this is what I will do.

An Cathaoirleach: Does the Senator want No. 9 on the Order Paper to be taken ahead of No. 1?

Senator David Norris: Yes.