Order of Business - 24th April 2008

Order of Business - 24th April 2008
Senator David Norris: I support Senator O'Toole's call for a debate on alcohol abuse. I welcome the introduction of legislation in this area but I agree with the leading article in The Irish Times today, which called it "a weak alcohol bill". It is not good enough. We know perfectly well that alcohol is responsive to two triggers. It is price sensitive and it is sensitive to pressure on advertising. Nothing is being done about this. Excise duty on spirits has not increased in the past six budgets while the tax on beer has not increased over the past ten or 11 budgets. This efficient instrument is being ignored and nothing is being done about advertising. Drinks advertising is all over television and drinks companies are using sports and sports personalities-based advertising. There is a little rebalancing in the direction of the pub because of worries about people drinking at home. However, this is a pathetically weak response.
A discussion in the House could urge the Minister to for the first time honestly address a situation that is a disaster for this country. This is an epidemic and I would welcome such a debate. It is suggested some of these issues should be referred to the District Court but this is a waste of time. I have reported to the House during similar debates previously that I have witnessed many times in the District Court a licence being granted in defiance of the expressed views of the local community, the Garda and the city authorities. What use is it doing that? I do not blame the judges because, we, as legislators are at fault.
I propose an amendment to the Order of the Business, "That No. 18, motion No. 3 be taken before No. 1". The motion is in the names of myself and Senators O'Toole and Bacik. I am sure others will agree with this but they have not signed the motion yet. I propose this in light of statements by UNRRA earlier. It will not be able to continue providing basic food requirements to almost 750,000 people in the Gaza Strip. This is a response to the rocket attacks on Israel, which I deplore, but it is completely wrong to affect the most basic issues of life such as sewerage, water, refuse collection and hospitals by cutting off fuel supplies. This is collective punishment, which is illegal under international law, and the Israelis are only getting away with it because the United States has used its veto at the United Nations.
A protocol on human rights is attached to the Lisbon treaty. If we believe in anything to do with human rights, we must do something about this. I do not even suggest a ban on Israeli goods or something similar but the least we can do, because this human rights protocol exists, is establish a monitoring body. Let us know how this legal instrument is being affected, otherwise let us forget the pretence that we have any interest in human rights or the welfare of 750,000 people who are illegally subjected to collective punishment by the Israeli Government under the patronage of the Bush Administration.

Private Members Motion - School Buildings Projects - 23rd April 2008

Private Members Motion - School Buildings Projects - 23rd April 2008
I welcome the Minister of State to the House for this useful and pertinent debate. Senator O'Toole refers to the inordinate amount of parliamentary time consumed by these matters. Every Member has tabled an Adjournment matter on schools building projects and has large files on the matter and numerous examples have been outlined in the debate. The Minister attempted to address a number of the issues but, as Senator O'Toole said to me when I whispered in his shell like ear, what one needs is the spade in the ground. Getting on to bands may sound good but action, a timetable and information are needed. One does not need to be given the run-around and this is why there is so much frustration among school authorities and why they write to even people like myself. Members receive a significant number of inquiries in this regard.
The motion is extremely sensible, as it proposes clear visibility in the criteria and clear accountability so that schools know their ranking and have an idea of the date for a project. There are too many prefabricated buildings and it is not fair on the children. I welcome Senator Boyle's contribution. He proposed a decent approach. He accepts the reality, as did Senator O'Sullivan, and it is not easy when one is on the Government benches to acknowledge this. That indicates we are all going in the same direction, although it is not possible for the Government Members to be as trenchant as some of us.
I refer to the new Carbury school in Sligo. It is the only Protestant school in the town. It began as a model school in a historic building, which is now the Model Arts and Niland Gallery, having been handed over by the board of management. In 1977 a new school was built on a site belonging to the Incorporated Society of Ireland, next door to Sligo grammar school. Because the school has been successful, conditions are cramped, with six portakabins on the campus. Three are used as classrooms, two for resource classes and one as a staffroom. The school has no dedicated assembly hall for daily use. The teachers and pupils must juggle between classrooms, having to move desks and so on to take part in indoor activities. The portakabins are rented, which is an expense. The parents have raised the amount required - €63,000.
In 2006, the Department granted approval for a new school building and planning permission was granted in April 2007. The parents have been campaigning for the school for ten years. They were asked to get ready to decamp. They received planning permission in December 2007 and in the same month a decision was made not to proceed.

This is dreadful and demonstrates the kind of agony and frustration applicants are put through.
This matter related to Carbury school, but to demonstrate the non-sectarian nature of my interest in my constituency, I would like to refer to the Holy Rosary national school in Oldcourt, Dublin 24. Sr. Mary O'Neill and some of the parents were in touch with me about the school. One of the pupils wrote to me and said they used to have a playing field, but now it is covered with portakabins. This little girl told me she and her friend found a dead rat one day and a girl who walked on it was sick and had to go home as a result. This is grim stuff for a child to endure. A mother of some of these children wrote to me and said her oldest child is in a prefab and her next child will be in one next year. They move the children on from the prefabs each year because the conditions are so bleak. The buildings are miserable, cold and rat infested.
Conditions are terrible. Teachers going to class have to drive their cars between the prefabs in the playground and it is only a matter of time before a child is injured. The home-school-community liaison teacher has a desk in a corridor. Is this acceptable in this day and age, considering these cold, flimsy prefabs cost the State a non-returnable €100,000 a year?
The Minister also should give consideration to the Montessori schools which are anomalous because they get no funding at all. The Montessori school in Celbridge, the Glebe Montessori junior school, needs to upgrade its building and equipment, but it gets no assistance because it is not on the register. This is another little bureaucratic technical manoeuvre that gets the Department out of funding one of the best educational systems in the country. I hope the Minister takes this on board and considers the possibility of providing funding to Montessori schools which do such an excellent job, in particular the one at Glebe.

Dublin Transport Authority Bill 2008 - Second Stage Debate - 23rd April 2008
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister to the House. I am very glad he is in charge of the Department of Transport. I have followed his career with interest and admiration over a number of years. He is prepared to be decisive, innovatory and to stick to his guns.
I have some reservations about this Bill which I intend to put on the record. However, before I do, I wish to say that while I believe it is important we have an integrated transport system, accountability and a small group of people with authority in the area, I would like to discount the rumours that have been circulating around the House today as a result of an article in the Irish Independent that I propose to be the first elected lord mayor of Dublin.
Senator John Ellis: The Senator is canvassing too early.
Senator David Norris: I would not touch the post with a barge pole. I would be completely the wrong person. I do not have the administrative talents that are required. I would like to advise those who are considering placing a bet, at odds of eight to one, not to waste their few dollars.
I agree with the point raised in the very fine speech by Senator Donohoe regarding the refusal to allow elected Members to serve on the boards of bodies such as the proposed Dublin transport authority. That is something we should examine again. I know the reasoning behind it, namely, a concern to avoid political jobbery and partisanship. However, I had the pleasure of serving on the Oireachtas Committee on Transport during the previous Seanad under Senator Ellis, then Deputy Ellis. That committee and all the other committees on which I have served met and made decisions in a non-partisan way in the interests of the country. I believe if we relaxed the rules and allowed elected Members to serve on such boards, precisely those democratic forces which we want to see might come into play. I would rely on my colleagues not to act in a partisan fashion and believe they would not do so. The Members of these Houses are professional people.
I am a little disappointed in the Bill. Its title is something of a misnomer. It is not really the Dublin Transport Authority Bill but rather the Dublin bus authority Bill because it does not address the issue of rail. While it deals with the Luas and surface rail services, the most critical element of Dublin transport as far as I am concerned is the development of metro. We pioneered that idea in this House and pushed it when it was very unpopular. We promoted the idea against very strong bureaucratic resistance. We also pushed the idea within the Oireachtas Committee on Transport. To omit the metro is a significant diminution of the significance, power and responsibility of the proposed authority.
At the beginning of his speech today, the Minister referred to surface transport. It is perfectly clear that some of the lessons that have been learnt were learned as a result of the work done in debates in the Houses and in inquiries of the Oireachtas Committee on Transport on the subject of metro. The committee, for example, invited Professor Manuel Maynar Melis from Madrid. He also spoke to the Cabinet sub-committee on transport. He examined and addressed very clearly and cogently the delays incurred by the absence of legislation in this area, especially with regard to planning and land acquisition. He made a number of suggestions, some of which clearly are incorporated into the Bill.
It is surprising that lessons that were learned on the issue of metro are being implemented, but only in the context of surface transport. The metro is the single most important element of our transport strategy because it is the one solution that will reduce the pressure on surface transport.
I have just seen off a guest from the Middle East. He adored Dublin but the one criticism he had was about the unholy traffic here. He found it impossible to believe the traffic jams. Of course, we walked almost everywhere and the taxi lanes were of some help.
One could read the Minister's speech and not realise that the underground is excluded. One would think it was included, particularly given that the Minister said that: "The DTA will have responsibility for the allocation of Exchequer funds for public transport infrastructure projects". One of the biggest spending infrastructure projects is the metro. The impression given by the Minister's speech is that it is the whole bag but it is not. It is a partial deal.

Lessons have been learned from the London experience, which is good. I have in the past complained that we tend to look to British legislation and copy it slavishly. That has not been done in this instance and we have learned a good lesson.
With regard to the Railway Procurement Agency the Minister stated:
In the intervening period the Railway Procurement Agency had made major progress on the important projects assigned to it under Transport 21, particularly Metro North. I became concerned that absorption of the RPA by the Authority could jeopardise the ongoing PPP procurement process in respect of Metro North, which is at a critical and sensitive juncture.
How and why? Perhaps there are good reasons but the Minister, significantly, did not spell them out. He became concerned because there might be problems but what were they? It is not obvious that the PPP process would be damaged at this "sensitive juncture". He also stated, "I am also satisfied that the benefit of providing organisational continuity in respect of the Metro North procurement process far outweigh any other benefits could have accrued from pursuing other options...". What were those benefits and costs?
The Minister stated in an aside that it would be a regrettable feature if the service provider was also part of the regulatory authority. I would like further information because I find this confusing. I may have misunderstood him but I do not believe the RPA is necessarily correctly seen as a service provider. It may implement Government policy by acquiring land and putting out the construction of a railway or tunnel to public tender but the providers will be commercial companies. The tunnelling will be done by public competition and tender. Perhaps this is too insignificant to have troubled the consciousness of other Members but Cormac Rabbitte, a brilliant engineer, has been very much engaged with this issue on a selfless basis for many years. He produced a number of people who were prepared to tender. One was a Japanese company, Mitsui, which was prepared to undertake the entire project virtually for nothing on the basis that it would be awarded a 35-year contract to run the system. I do not necessarily see the RPA as a service provider in the sense it is accessible to an ordinary person like myself.
The other difficulty I have with the authority relates to the way in which its members will be appointed. The Minister stated:
The Establishment Team's report recommended the use of an independent nomination panel to recommend to the Minister persons for appointment to the Authority. However, the previous Government took the firm view that there should be strong accountability by the Authority to the Minister of the day and to Government given the large amount of taxpayers' money...
Do I sense unease on the part of the Minister because he is landing this back in the lap of the previous Government? If he feels unease, I share it because if an establishment team recommends an independent nomination panel, it is not appropriate to slap down the suggestion without an explanation of why it is better because that leads to suspicions of political jobbery. If the Minister accepts what previous speakers said, Oireachtas Members should be involved. In that case, the process should be independent. It will exonerate the Minister, who is an honourable man, from any suggestion that he or his successor will nominate to the authority persons from their own political party for reasons of political patronage. A number of persons will be statutorily involved such as the city manager and, therefore, only a small number of places will be available.
It is regrettable that the question of taxi regulation has been introduced at the last minute because that means an incomplete Bill has been presented to the House. At least the Minister has noticed a gap and has moved to address it. Given that he is introducing an amendment, I cannot see why he could not have done something similar with regard to permitting the authority to examine the underground problem.
I welcome the Bill because it has elements of the Wide Streets Commission. I would like to make a strong plea regarding bus regulation, which the Minister will examine. I like public transport and I like the utilities to be State-owned. I like such corporatism and I am not convinced the market is the absolute god. If these services are provided, they need to be monitored very carefully. Why, for example, are there no public bus parks for private buses? Why are they parked dangerously on Parnell Street and Mountjoy Square? Will the Minister examine the way buses are serviced because a number of them belch out black fumes? On the corner of Merrion Square under a sign that says, "Engines must be switched off", buses are neatly parked every day with their engines running, sometimes with no drivers in them. That is not acceptable.

Order of Business - 23rd April 2008

Order of Business - 23rd April 2008
Senator David Norris: I very much respect the Cathaoirleach's position, the way he conducts himself and the rulings he gives. However, I must reluctantly say that I cannot give an undertaking that I will never interrupt again because it is part of the tradition of this House. Had I not interrupted and heckled yesterday, the very serious matter we were discussing might have passed unnoticed. Nobody else stopped the Senator in question and nobody else, including the Cathaoirleach, rebuked him until I heckled and interrupted him. If one studies the record, one will see what happened. There is a very useful role for the judicious interruption. That is part of the tradition of this House.
An Cathaoirleach: We are on the Order of Business.
Senator David Norris: I did so because it is very dangerous to undermine the institutions of this State. Perhaps if it is constitutionally possible, we can have a debate on the function of the Judiciary. I do not know if that would violate the constitutional requirement.
It is worth pointing to the name of the person involved. Senator Callanan said that the allegation should be repeated because it was true. I clearly heard that. The report in the newspaper said it was Senator Cannon who said that. This should be corrected. It was not Senator Cannon but Senator Callanan, who also included some personally abusive material about me which I do not require him to withdraw. I do not regard it as being of any consequence because I do not regard him as a person of political significance anyway.
Senator Mary M. White: That is a nasty thing to say.
Senator David Norris: It does not matter. It is a political statement that I can make.
An Cathaoirleach: We are on the Order of Business and I ask the Senator whether he has any questions for the Leader.
(Interruptions).
Senator David Norris: I will not withdraw it. It is a political charge. I am raising the question of the Judiciary and I believe it is very important that we have an opportunity to look at it because it is being consistently undermined. To be fair, I disagree strongly with the programme of Fine Gael as announced recently, which I am sure is well-intentioned. It suggested that mandatory sentences is the way we should go and that there must be an automatic 25-year sentence for murder and so on. If we suspect the judgment of judges, that is a very serious situation.
Senator Joe O'Toole: Hear, hear.
Senator David Norris: There was a very nasty rape case recently and one sympathises very strongly with the victims. However, there is a lack of proportion in the attacks upon a Member of the other House who apparently wrote a letter about the family background which said that the parents were decent people. As far as I know, that may well be a fact. Yet people attacked the Member when they did not even have possession of that letter.
It is very important that we have a sense of proportion because included in that is a suggestion that the judge would not be able to reach a proper decision because of a simple letter like that.

I have much more confidence in judges. When we impugn people like that, we damage things. It is a different, for example, when we put on record matters of fact, as I did, about the professor of psychiatry. I pointed out a fact, of which the public must be informed, that the authors of a Swedish report that she quoted contradicted her.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator can discuss that during a debate at a later point.
Senator David Norris: That was followed by the head of UNICEF who said her use of this information was inaccurate and inappropriate. I did not impugn her. I did not say there was anything ideological about what she said, although my colleague, Senator Mullen, impugned the reputation of those Swedish researchers without knowing anything about them. He said they were ideologically driven. There is no doubt that both he and Professor Casey have an ideological background because they are involved in the Iona Institute, but I am only interested in the question of the facts.
An Cathaoirleach: The Deputy has made his point.

Order of Business - 22nd April 2008

Order of Business - 22nd April 2008
Senator David Norris: Will the Leader contact the Minister for Foreign Affairs to wish him success with the forthcoming international diplomatic conference on cluster munitions, to be held in Croke Park? I hope a treaty can be produced on foot of that meeting. In light of the resolutions which were passed unanimously on an all-party basis by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and this House, it is important for the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, to hold the line in the interests of everyone. European countries that persist in manufacturing these appalling instruments of misery and death will be represented at the conference. They will seek to weaken what is already on the table. I hope we will hold the line in that regard. In that context, I welcome the announcement made a week ago or so by the Minister that the process of disinvestment of this State's pension funds, etc. in companies that are associated with the munitions trade has commenced. We had been looking for such an announcement for some time.
Can the Leader arrange a debate on the extraordinary disappearance of hundreds of children who had been placed in care by the Health Service Executive? We have no record of them. We do not know where they are or what has happened them. Some of them appear to have ended up in the sex trade, which is not something this country should support.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Lisbon treaty tomorrow. There seems to be an automatic assumption that the only positive outcome is a "Yes" vote. It is not democratic to suggest that one has the right to vote as long as one votes "Yes". Similarly, we should not patronise voters by telling them they cannot access a document that is amenable to "a third class child", whatever that is.
Senator Joe O'Toole: I was referring to a child in third class in school.
Senator David Norris: Fine.
An Cathaoirleach: On the Order of Business-----
Senator David Norris: To be fair, a Chathaoirligh, I gave Senator O'Toole advance warning of that little one. He made some arcane whispers to me about the need for a treaty that could be turned over two pages at a time, like the Book of Kells.
Senator Joe O'Toole: We can read one page a day.
Senator David Norris: I have attempted to look at this treaty.
An Cathaoirleach: Other speakers are waiting.
Senator David Norris: The closer I look at it, the less I like it. We know that 96% of it is the failed European constitution. If we are so democratic, why are we the only one of the 27 member states to give voters an opportunity to vote on the treaty? If it is such a wonderful thing and everyone knows it is right, why are we afraid to let people vote? Why do we have a new blossoming of European megalocrats, so to speak, who know better than their own populations? Why are we getting so many conflicting messages? We are being told that our tax advantage, of which many European countries are jealous, will be guarded, even though the leaders of at least two or three major European countries which are in competition with us have convinced themselves they will be able to get rid of it. I do not like the insidious way in which, for example, a European Commissioner who commenced action against the provisions which permitted the churches in this country to get exemption from our equality legislation-----
An Cathaoirleach: We are on the Order of Business.
Senator David Norris: It is an extraordinary thing that the Christian religions should want not to be covered by that legislation.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should ask some questions of the Leader.
Senator David Norris: When the Commissioner came to this country, he gave undertakings to a small unrepresentative clique of people in the same way as we got the protocol on abortion in a previous treaty. That is not very democratic. I am making my way through the treaty. I have not yet decided how I will vote, although I am pretty close to deciding on a "No" vote.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should ask a question.
Senator David Norris: I am entitled to do that. I will distance myself from anyone who attacks an elected representative. I deplore the attack on Proinsias de Rossa, MEP.
Senator Jim Walsh: Are we having the debate now?
Senator David Norris: I also deplore the condescension that has been doled out to people who may honourably, decently and with integrity take a different view. That is not democracy, nor the Europe in which I want to be.
I want to be in a social Europe, not a neoliberal economic mess.
Senator Eugene Regan: I hope that prior to the finish of the debate on the Lisbon treaty, Senator Norris can be brought around to vote "Yes". He raises an interesting question as to why we will have a referendum in Ireland. It is not for constitutional reasons. It is because we have a tradition of having referenda in light of the Crotty judgment of 1986.
Senator David Norris: We are promised them and half the time they cancel them.


Senator Jim Walsh: In that regard, the Government is not blameless for having, in the first instance, agreed the extraordinary fees which these people are getting, but we must recognise that the chairmen of some of those tribunals in fact used their position in order to act more or less as shop stewards for the wealthy legal profession in extracting-----
(Interruptions).
Senator Alex White: What are we listening to now?
Senator David Norris: That remark should be withdrawn at once.
An Cathaoirleach: Members should confine their comments to questions to the Leader
Senator David Norris: Excuse me, I am sorry, this is a democratic State and that is a most dangerous accusation to make about a legally established body and its chairman. It is outrageous and I demand that it be withdrawn.


Senator David Norris: The Senator has made serious criminal charges.
Senator Jim Walsh: Can I say that the commissions of investigation legislation which was passed by these Houses during the time of the last Government-----


Senator Jim Walsh: -----clearly set down
(Interruptions).
Senator David Norris: I have asked the Cathaoirleach to rule that that remark be withdrawn. Will he give a ruling on it?
An Cathaoirleach: I inform Senator Norris that I have asked Senator Walsh to withdraw his comment.

An Cathaoirleach: If the Senator continues with that, I will adjourn the House.
Senator David Norris: We now have an extremely serious situation. Senator Callanan has said that he is telling the truth, in defiance of the Cathaoirleach's authority. It is a very serious constitutional matter.
Senator Callanan: -----and listen to the bloody airy fairy tales we are getting from over there.


An Cathaoirleach: If the Senator continues with that, I will adjourn the House.
Senator David Norris: We now have an extremely serious situation. Senator Callanan has said that he is telling the truth, in defiance of the Cathaoirleach's authority. It is a very serious constitutional matter.
Senator Callanan: -----and listen to the bloody airy fairy tales we are getting from over there.

Order of Business - 17th April 2008

Order of Business - 17th April 2008
Senator David Norris: I thank my colleague Senator O’Toole for raising the custody case. It
is extremely important and it is a reproach to this House. We had the relevant Bill, prepared
by myself and Senator Bacik, on the Order Paper for four years. It went into every committee.
The Government raised questions and some of these questions have been now answered by
the learned judge, Mr. Justice Hedigan, who stated — it is important to put this on record —
that there was nothing in Irish law to suggest that a family of two women and an child “has
any lesser right to be recognised as a de facto family than a family composed of a man and
woman unmarried to each other”. The judge stressed the absence of any provisions securing
the rights of this de facto family under article 8 securing the rights——
An Cathaoirleach: I do not want people reading the newspapers on the Order of Business.
Senator David Norris: I insist on doing so and I will say why. Several people read speeches
from beginning to end prepared by Government advisers and I want to accurately put on the
record the reproach of this distinguished judge to this House for not doing what it should have
done. I want to get it right and I do not mean any disrespect; I am being accurate. The judge
stated that it is something that calls for urgent consideration by the legislators. That is what I
want to put on the record and this addresses directly one of the matters referred to by Senator
Boyle as being a subject of contention within the Cabinet, namely, the right to adopt and the
rights of children within these families. In the Zappone case in the High Court evidence was
given by Professor Patricia Casey which used Swedish research. It is extremely important to
put on the record that the authors of that Swedish research have written to the newspaper
stating this was an inappropriate use of this research and that the conclusions drawn by Professor Casey and given as evidence in the court were inaccurate. I hope this will be taken into
consideration when this important matter is considered. Can I raise——
An Cathaoirleach: On that point, will the Senator give the source newspaper from which he
is quoting?
Senator David Norris: I beg your pardon, The Irish Times. The newspaper of record and the
only newspaper that records the doings of this House.
An Cathaoirleach: Enough said about that now.
Senator David Norris: I welcome the fact that the Department of Foreign Affairs has issued
a statement supporting Mr. Michael Semple a distinguished diplomat who has recently had
some turbulence in his career and who is accused by certain media sources here of being a
spook and a spy, quoting low grade British newspapers in so doing. I hope the statement of
support contains information stating that he most definitely was not a spy. The only difficulty
is — this is something that is apparently quite foreign to the American authorities — he had
an acquaintance with the local languages, Pashto and the other Afghani dialects. I welcome
this statement.
I strongly support my colleague Senator Ross. I have listened to him with interest over many
years. I am not gifted in the area of economy but I do recall him talking of insider trading.
Unlike Senator Walsh, I think it is 100% appropriate that we support the decision of the court
because that is what was being done. We have a decision; this was insider trading. There was
an excellent article by Mr. Vincent Browne in The Irish Times yesterday which describes it
appropriately as theft.
An Cathaoirleach: Will the Senator please speak through the Chair and to the Leader?
Senator David Norris: Through the Chair to the Leader, this should be left on the record of
the House. In possession of information that their shares were on a decline, some of these
gentlemen went around the world on what they called roadshows flogging the thing. They were
selling something they knew to be practically valueless to unfortunate people. That is theft and
the amounts involved were \80 million, twice the amount involved in the Northern Bank robbery, about which we got so steamed up. It is extraordinary to think that in this country we
send people to jail for not paying their television licences and somebody can get away with \80
million of loot and get only a little slap on the wrist. That is an incitement of crime and Senator
Ross is perfectly right to raise the question of a debate on the financial regulatory system. Well
done to him.

Motion on the Kidnapping and Detention of Ms. Ingrid Betancourt - 10th April 2008

Motion on The Kidnapping and Detention of Ms Ingrid Betancourt - 10th April 2008
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State to the House. It is a very good day. It is excellent that this motion is an all-party one signed by the representatives of the different groups. I had forgotten this motion was on the Order Paper when I tabled the other one as a result of direct contact from the campaign to release Ingrid Betancourt. I proposed the simple idea that there should be contact with FARC as clearly and directly as possible to request it to release her. I was very happy when I was advised by the office that the all-party motion was quite the best because while it includes Ingrid Betancourt, it broadens the matter. It is a good day that we are unanimous because it will send the right message. It was also just as well we took it because apparently we had no other business for today.
This is a very important motion. First, there is the principle that kidnapping is a beastly, inhuman and indefensible practice because it entails using the physical distress of a human being as if he or she were merely an inanimate pawn in a political game. That is revolting and I condemn FARC for it. I know it started out as a left-wing organisation with, as it saw it, the interests of the poor. However, it has gone on from that and has gone down some very dangerous ways involving kidnapping, terrorist explosions and the generation of enormous sums of money from drugs.
Ingrid Betancourt comes from a very distinguished family. Her father was the Colombian Ambassador to UNESCO, which shows a certain context. Her mother founded a refuge for street children, which again is a humanitarian concern. She organised political campaigns for her family and was elected to the senate, which gives us another interest because she was, like us, a senator. She received the highest vote in the election in which she was successful. We also have an interest in her because she is a European citizen. She has dual citizenship, being also a citizen of France. It is appropriate and right and we have locus standi to raise this issue.
After she was elected she took her principles to where they led her and she impugned the reputation of one of her political sponsors, the President of Colombia, for corruption, which shows her extraordinary integrity. She met and negotiated with FARC in good faith on humanitarian reasons. She indicated that she saw them as among the representatives of the oppressed. Then they cynically snatched her. From documents that have been released we know that while she was in the initial phase of that negotiation, FARC had decided already on the tactics of kidnap so that it could use her in its war against the government, which I unreservedly condemn. It is horrifying to think of such a woman being smothered and dragged around the jungle given that she has hepatitis B, malaria and a serious dermatological condition. We know from that extraordinary and powerful article by Lara Marlowe that she has now endured such misery that she has said she would welcome the peace of death. She keeps in contact to a certain extent. Her mother broadcasts every day in the hope that it will be heard.
For the first time Seanad Éireann has a representative of Sinn Féin, who is an excellent able and honourable person. I regret that he was unable to be here today for various reasons. I appeal to him that Sinn Féin should use its contacts because it has direct contact with FARC and we know that. It should use that contact. As I understand he is sympathetic, I hope that this might happen.
I honour that remarkable man and campaigner for democracy and human rights, the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, for the role he played. I very much regret that the Colombian Government invaded a neighbouring state and shot dead the number two in FARC, who was in charge of the negotiations. Talk about an own goal.

Order of Business - 10th April 2008

Order of Business - 10th April 2008
Senator David Norris: It is very important we discuss this matter because there are different views. Different views may be held with integrity, but there is no factual question that the Olympic Games and the events surrounding it are intensely political. That is why political leaders from all over the world, who would not know the difference between ju-jitsu and an egg and spoon race, are attending. They will be doing side deals. The Chinese are driving the torch through Tibet. That is rubbing the nose of the oppressed in the dust and grinding it by imperialist aggression.
What we have requested is a boycott by the athletes. We have not demanded, but requested. They should consider, as a matter of conscience, absenting themselves from the formal aspect of the opening ceremony, while going on to compete, of course. We want them to be there to honour us, to compete in this wonderful event. The Dalai Lama has issued a statement this morning in which he says that it is appropriate and right that the Olympic Games should go to Beijing. The Chinese people, whom he honours and respects, deserve this, he says. Protests should be peaceful, he emphasises, but he also says the reason for them is the extinction of freedom of speech in Tibet.
Those who attended the meeting yesterday of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, such as Senators Ormonde and Hannigan, were intensely moved by the story of a young woman, three generations of whose family in Tibet had been tortured and murdered. It is a small thing to ask, a symbolic gesture. I quoted James Joyce who said that sometimes absence is the highest form of presence. By absenting themselves physically a moral point will be made.
Those of a strong nationalist persuasion should be aware that historically, Ireland was the first country to boycott the Olympic Games. In London in 1908 the athletes refused to compete in order to show their horror at the fact that our imperial overlords refused to grant the limited measure, even, of Home Rule. For those reasons we should consider this. A Fianna Fáil Member at yesterday's meeting made a very interesting comparison. He said that putting the torch through Tibet was like Orange bands parading provocatively through Catholic and nationalist areas, and we should remember this.
Senator Ormonde is right in saying that an invitation has been formally extended by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. It is something that may be considered. I have certain proposals, which I have communicated to Senator O'Toole, who is our representative on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. However, I do not want to gazzump the matter. It would be inappropriate to raise particular proposals here before they have passed before the committee.

Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill - 2nd Stage Debate - 9th April 2008

Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill - 9th April 2008


I am a little rushed in my speech because I have just left the first meeting of the Oireachtas Sub-Committee on Human Rights.
Deputy Seán Power: Senator Norris is not fit.
Senator David Norris: I am not at all fit. The Minister of State is correct and I thank him for his concern. I promise to do better and during the week I am going to inspect the fitness room. Enough of my immediate personal circumstances.
I want to address the personal circumstances of some of the even more afflicted members of our community. I want to address one specific element only because this is a rag bag of a Bill drawing together many miscellaneous provisions. I want to strike the question of free legal aid services, the amendment that is being introduced under this legislation and the context in which it has taken place. The water has been muddied by information emanating from the Minister's Department, in particular an article in The Sunday Times which I regard, since its acquisition by Mr. Rupert Murdoch, as a disreputable newspaper. The Sunday Times of 6 April carried an article which referred to an unpublished piece of research by a reputable group, Indecon. This research purports to examine the number of people qualifying for legal aid and the circumstances. It stated, and this provides the context for this debate, that under the existing provisions, 70% of the Irish population would qualify for legal aid. This is seen as excessive but I do not think it is. Where we are happy to give education more or less free of charge to everyone with no means test, I see no reason legal aid should not be as widely accessible as possible because costs in the law courts are enormous and are way beyond the means of a large number of people.
An unnamed spokesperson for the Legal Aid Board was quoted in the article as saying although the report needed to be validated, the members of the board were perfectly happy with Indecon's work. It is curious that they can be happy without validating the report. They applied legal aid thresholds to a broad spectrum of statistical information from across Europe and applied them specifically to Irish incomes and living conditions. However, no other information was given about the parameters of this research. The Free Legal Advice Centres applied for further information and were told the board was not in a position to express definitive views on the outcome. When they asked when this material could be made available they were told it was not clear. It was a kind of holding operation and they were put at arm's length. The same article points out that waiting times for February, just a month or so ago, confirms that five law centres have waiting lists of five months or more, including seven months in Wexford.


There was a case in the High Court, O'Donoghue v. the Legal Aid Board, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Attorney General during which Mr. Justice J. Kelly said, with regard to the question of a reasonable waiting time, that whereas one could not compare it directly to what one would get if one acquired the services of a solicitor in the open market, it should be possible to reduce waiting times to a much more reasonable figure. He felt that the target of two to four months was applicable.
In that context, I wish to look at a specific amendment of section 29 (2) of the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995, which at the moment reads:
The Board may, in accordance with regulations under section 37, provide legal aid or advice to an applicant without reference to his or her financial resources and may waive any contribution payable pursuant to this section and to any other regulations under section 37 or may accept a lower contribution.
That is as it stands at the moment. What is proposed under the Bill is an interesting change, whereby this provision is split into two parts - (a) and (b) - which is sinister. The proposed change is as follows:
The Board may—
(a) in accordance with regulations under section 37, provide legal aid or advice to an applicant without reference to his or her financial resources,
(b) waive any contribution payable pursuant to this section and to any other regulations under section 37, or accept a lower contribution, on the ground that a failure to do so would cause severe hardship to the applicant.
This introduces a very severe test and I do not think it is appropriate. It is being done because the Government is afraid that too many citizens will avail of this right, which is a basic one. It is miserly, penny pinching and unjust to introduce any such amendment and I will be opposing it when it comes before the House. I will table an amendment to this provision and will vote against it as it stands.
The Minister claims he is doing this because confusion has arisen due to the implementing regulations and he is attacking them. However, if the regulations are at fault, why does the Government not amend them? Why is it amending the primary legislation? That is a kind of conjuring trick and I do not like it. I remain to be convinced on this matter.
The situation at present is disastrous. The Free Legal Advice Centres have advised me that they believe the lengthy interpretation given in the other House is incorrect because the regulations do not limit the circumstances where the fees can be waived to those where only the minimum fee was payable. In specific terms, regulation 21(1) states:
The contributions, including the maximum income and capital contributions payable by a person in receipt of legal aid or advice under this Part, may be varied or waived having regard to sections 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Act of 1995 and these Regulations.

The maximum income contribution, which is mentioned, refers to the maximum amount that a person
may be asked to pay. A person must have a disposable income of €18,000 or less. Mercifully, the capital aspect of the enjoyment of a private home has been removed since August 2006. However, the existing legislation does not introduce the idea of "severe hardship". I ask the Minister of State to tell us what is meant by the term "severe hardship". Who decides on this? There is no definition of severe hardship available. People may in fact be in severe hardship in ways that are concealed. For example, a person may technically have a disposable income of €18,000 but may have binding financial commitments. People get into debt on their credit cards or they may have loan repayments which they are required to make, which can substantially reduce their income. Therefore, this stipulation regarding a disposable income of €18,000 does not amount to a real income test. What happens if €8,000 or €9,000 of that total must be paid out for mortgage or other such commitments?
I wish to put on the record what I see as the penny pinching aspect of this Bill. A person in receipt of legal representation who has a disposable income of over €11,500 is obliged to pay one quarter of the difference between €11,500 and the maximum disposable income of €18,000, plus the minimum contribution of €50. The contribution could, therefore, run from €1,000 up to €1,675, which is an enormous amount of money. It may seem nothing to us because, thank God, Members in this House are now in receipt of very considerable remuneration. However, to the average person in poor circumstances, with debt repayments to be made, it is a severe test.
The Minister said that confusion has arisen because implementing the regulations of 1996 purported to limit the applicability of the provisions enacted by the Oireachtas. It does not. That is wrong. Furthermore, if this was the Minister's main purpose, why, as I said earlier, does he not examine the regulations? I ask the Minister to review the situation because rather than broadening the access of ordinary citizens to legal aid, this provision will substantially narrow access by introducing an unclear, vague test of "severe hardship", which is wrong, unjust and unfair. I ask the Minister to withdraw the amendment.

Order of Business - 8th April 2008

Order of Business - 8th April 2008

I support my colleagues. It is notable that the call came from across the House that we should have a debate on the Olympic Games and China. We have a comprehensive motion, No. 8, in the name of the Independent Senators about the position, for example, of the Tibetan people under the Dali Lama. Driving the Olympic torch through Tibet is tantamount to driving a dagger through the heart of democracy. It is unconscionable humiliation of the oppressed people of Tibet. I agree with Senator O’Toole that of course politics and sport are mixed, as the Chinese Government knows perfectly well which is why it grabbed the Olympic Games and is trying to milk them for whatever it could get out of them. I am glad it has backfired. I would like the Minister to come to the House and explain why, despite the fact that no less than three Fianna Fáil former Ministers, the late Frank Aitken, Michael O’Kennedy and David Andrews, did not support the so-called integration of Tibet into China, the Chinese ambassador can use The Irish Times to inform the people that it is our policy. Is the Chinese ambassador now formulating and articulating foreign policy on our behalf? We should boycott the opening ceremony. The athletes should maintain a dignified absence. James Joyce said that on some occasions “absence is the highest form of presence”. By absenting themselves they would make a moral statement and it would allow them to continue to compete, which everybody would also like.
I wish to move an amendment to the Order of Business, that we take No 36, in the name of all the Independent Senators. It is of particular urgency as it refers to the case of Ingrid Betancourt. I know I am not the only person in the House — virtually everybody here feels very strongly about it. This is an extraordinary woman, whose father was Colombian ambassador to UNESCO, whose mother founded an institution for street children in Colombia, who, herself, was elected by the highest vote to the Colombian Senate, who opened discussions with FARC in an honourable manner and was then kidnapped by that group. She is now seriously ill with malaria and hepatitis B, and has a serious dermatological condition. She may die of she does not get a blood transfusion. In the interests of humanity, I ask that we should give even 20 minutes today to pass this resolution, which I am sure would be an all-party resolution.
In light of our experience of British airports, despite the fact that an Irishman is in charge of the latest fiasco, and in light of the recent article by Senator Feargal Quinn in The Irish Times about joining the Schengen Agreement, it should be noted that Irish citizens are routinely refused the use of flight transfer facilities in British airports. They are forced to land and then to re-apply to the airline. In recent days two people close to me have experienced great difficulties in Heathrow Airport. It is no coincidence that they are black haired, brown eyed and brown skinned. One of them, a close friend of mine, was detained and asked how somebody like him acquired an Irish passport. In response to that, I ask the Irish Government to arrange for some of the no doubt fully Aryan, blue eyed, fair haired, fair skinned staff of the British Embassy to be routinely detained at Collinstown Aerodrome in a special little room so they can experience the delights of racism, to which Irish citizens are routinely treated in Heathrow and other British airports.