Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2008 - Committee and Remaining Stages - 9th July 2008

Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2008 - Committee and Remaining Stages - 9th July 2008
Senator David Norris: This is the first amendment. Will the Minister of State, Deputy Conor
Lenihan, agree this process is completely chaotic? Will he state clearly, for the record of the
House, whether the Government is in a position to accept any amendment whatever, due to
the dissolution of the Da´ il? We are engaged in a farce. There is at least one amendment on
the Government side in the name of a leading member of the Minister of State’s party and the
leader of the Green Party in the House — the man who negotiated the formation of the
coalition Government. Will the Minister of State candidly state if he is prepared to accept an
amendment? It seems clear to me that he cannot. The degree of shambles in which we are
involved is evident from the fact that we have just been issued with a list referring to amendments
Nos. 2a and 12a which we do not yet have. Does the Minister of State believe this is any
way to conduct business? We have been given groupings of amendments that we have not seen,
which I find absurd.


Senator David Norris: Since I raised this matter it has been taken up. All my colleagues,
including those on the Government side, have acknowledged that there is a significant problem.
There is no intention to delay this matter and we concur on this side with Senator O’Donovan
if the Seanad must meet next week. The Da´ il will still be in recess so it will not be of much
use in solving the problem.
I say “well done” to the Minister of State on an admirable fudge. He did not say he would
accept any amendments and we all know bloody well that he will not. The Minister of State
spoke of what happened in the Da´ il but we know what happened there. A guillotine was
employed and two thirds of the amendments put down by the Opposition in the other House
were not discussed at all. That is what has happened with this Bill.
We are not trying to delay the legislation at all. We are absolutely at one with the Minister
of State in that the public order problem must be addressed. What the Minister of State has
essentially indicated, if he reads the subtext, is that there may be some ideas in the amendments
which will be incorporated in the main Bill in the autumn. I would be very surprised if the
Minister of State accepted any amendment today.
I am prepared, as the poet Wordsworth wrote, to be surprised by joy. I do not anticipate it
but I will not hold up the House any longer. We should get down to the substance of the
amendment because we have established where we are. It is a poor day for the respect for the
constitutional position of the Seanad in that this should happen. I do not personally blame the
Minister of State but I attach blame to the Government in the way it has treated this legislation.

Senator David Norris: I support Senator Hannigan’s amendment as this appears to be an
eminently reasonable proposal that is in the interests of the public. It now is at least six or
seven years since I raised this subject in the aftermath of disturbances on O’Connell Street
arising from the practice of a now-defunct nightclub to shovel people out at the same time as
pubs. This frequently led to antagonism between the different groups and was a serious problem.
As for the point made by Senator Hannigan on the question of transport availability,
particularly in respect of taxis and so on, it does not seem logical to push everyone out at
exactly the same time because they will compete in a limited market for the aforementioned
resources and tempers may become frayed. This appears to be an eminently sensible suggestion
that I am content to support.


Senator David Norris: I support the general thrust of Senator Regan’s amendment. If
situations arise in the District Court where there may be a number of, or a couple of dozen,
gardaı´ hanging around waiting to give evidence, that is not a proper management and use of
manpower. It seems wasteful.
However, I would put in a caveat, that those persons present in court to present such evidence
should be properly briefed. Sometimes it astonishes me, in looking at the way in which
the District Court operates, that often there is no objection, not because there is nothing
objectionable about the premises but because they have not bothered to find out. Where the
garda might be asked is there an objection, he or she answers “No”, but actually does not know
whether there is. That situation might be made worse if the garda is from a completely different
district, unless he or she is properly briefed and in possession of the correct information.
Probably the next amendment, which is in my name, addresses this situation. However, I
have that worry. I accept that it is wasteful to have large numbers of gardaı´ hanging around
just to make an formal acknowledgement, but it is not appropriate that they should be there
in the absence of being able to contribute something substantial to the understanding of the
matter before the court.

Senator David Norris: The Minister of State complimented Senator Regan on his ingenuity.
I compliment the Minister of State on the ingenuity and variety of his methods of evading or
avoiding accepting amendments. It is a remarkable intellectual exercise and I regret that I will
not be here for the entire afternoon to appreciate the full repertoire of the Minister’s
manoeuvres. However, I am an admirer and I wish to put this on the record of the House.
Amendment put.


The Committee divided: Ta´ , 17; Nı´l, 22.
Ta´
Bacik, Ivana.
Burke, Paddy.
Buttimer, Jerry.
Coffey, Paudie.
Cummins, Maurice.
Fitzgerald, Frances.
Hannigan, Dominic.
McCarthy, Michael.
McFadden, Nicky.
Nı´l
Boyle, Dan.
Brady, Martin.
Butler, Larry.
Carty, John.
Cassidy, Donie.
Corrigan, Maria.
Daly, Mark.
Ellis, John.
Feeney, Geraldine.
Glynn, Camillus.
Hanafin, John.
Tellers: Ta´ , Senators Maurice Cummins and Eugene Regan; Nı´l, Senators Fiona O’Malley and
Diarmuid Wilson.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 5 agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Senator David Norris: I move amendment No 5:
In page 6, subsection (3), line 17, after “evidence.” to insert the following:
“The Superintendent of the Garda Sı´ocha´na must present to the Court a document certifying
whether the premises has been appropriately and properly managed and supervised during
the preceding year.”.
965
Norris, David.
O’Reilly, Joe.
Phelan, John Paul.
Quinn, Feargal.
Regan, Eugene.
Ross, Shane.
Ryan, Brendan.
Twomey, Liam.
Keaveney, Cecilia.
Leyden, Terry.
MacSharry, Marc.
O’Brien, Francis.
O’Donovan, Denis.
O’Malley, Fiona.
O’Sullivan, Ned.
O´
Domhnaill, Brian.
O´
Murchu´ , Labhra´ s.
Ormonde, Ann.
Wilson, Diarmuid.


Amendment declared lost.
Section 5 agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Senator David Norris: I move amendment No 5:
In page 6, subsection (3), line 17, after “evidence.” to insert the following:
“The Superintendent of the Garda Sı´ocha´na must present to the Court a document certifying
whether the premises has been appropriately and properly managed and supervised during
the preceding year.”.


This amendment seeks to address the position I referred to just a few minutes ago, where the
court has inadequate or no information at all about the behaviour of the people running these
premises in the preceding year. To a certain extent I am inspired to table this amendment from
reading what Professor Keane stated about the responsibilities of senior consultants within the
health service. He pointed out that in Canada, it is a requirement of a senior consultant in
hospitals to issue a certificate every year of competence to all those medical personnel underneath
the consultant. This avoids, as much as possible, botched operations and diagnoses.
I have attended court on a number of occasions where applications for licences have simply
been rubber-stamped. There is no other possible description of it. When I mentioned this
before, a large number of people, including solicitors, came to me and told me I was perfectly
right. They had attended court on such occasions. This is not appropriate.
If we are to grant licences on the basis of the good character and responsible behaviour of
the proprietors, we must have some evidence. It is not sufficient for a judge to rubber-stamp a
string of these applications without the slightest inquiry. I have seen cases where there were
serious questions about the way in which licensed premises, in particular, were being run and
yet the applications went through on the nod.
A requirement to produce a certificate is not very onerous but would assist in the proper
running of premises. It should be a minimal requirement as otherwise judges will simply issue
licences without any knowledge of the behaviour of the people behind the applications. This
will happen unless the application becomes so scandalous that it appears in the newspapers or
other media and the judge becomes aware of it through these channels.

Senator David Norris: I thank the Minister of State who is correct on this matter. However,
part of the reason is that the legislation has been rushed into the House. I am pleased he has
accepted the idea behind the amendment and look forward to its inclusion in the sale of alcohol
Bill later in the year.
I will amplify a point made by the Minister of State. Sometimes, even in a new premises, the
person making the application is, to use an unfortunate phrase, known to the Garda and others
as a person who is completely unsuitable. In such circumstances, it would be particularly appropriate
to hear evidence from the police.
The Minister of State said various sections of the Bill provide an opportunity to the public
or authorities to object on various grounds. We must go further and make this a requirement
because these grounds are sometimes not as clear as they should be or are ideologically driven.
I volunteered to join the north inner city policing committee. There is no advantage to doing
this but I believe in taking a responsibility for my area. One of the matters that arose at a
meeting of the committee, at which the assistant city manager and various officials were
present, was the question of the licensing of new off-licences and the proliferation of licences
for corner shops, supermarkets and so forth. The committee requested a report on this issue.
When we received it we found it was ideologically driven and the only principle it respected
was that of competition. The welfare of the citizens of the surrounding area was of no consequence.
I forced the withdrawal of the report because the people within our city authorities
were observing what they considered to be an ideological requirement. As the Government is
in favour of competition, when considering granting licences and planning issues they focus
exclusively on competition rather than the well-being of the surrounding area. This was a
dreadful approach. Some tests of character are important and should be taken into account.
I welcome the Minister of State’s response and I will await the publication of the sale of
alcohol Bill in the autumn. I hope he or his colleagues will ensure the proposal in my amendment
is included in the legislation. I thank him for his interesting statement in this matter.
Owing to other commitments, I regret I will not be present for discussion of a later amendment.
However, I understand Senator Bacik has agreed to move an amendment on the labelling
of containers. I am sure the Cathaoirleach or Leas-Chathaoirleach will permit that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order of Business - 9th July 2008

Order of Business - 9th July 2008
Senator David Norris: I agree with the remarks made earlier by Senator Fitzgerald and others
in regard to today’s Order of Business, although I accept this is not entirely the Leader’s fault.
However, it would be useful if he took a stronger position on this issue. Today we are in the
rather farcical situation of discussing amendments which we know have no earthly chance of
being accepted by Government. This seriously undermines our constitutional function as the
second Chamber of the Oireachtas, which is lamentable. Would it be possible to secure from
Government a commitment that it will underwrite our constitutional position? I have no doubt
but that this is a breach of the Constitution. We are required to scrutinise and amend legislation
and are being prevented from doing so by the exigency of Government policies.
I have just returned from the airport where I met quite a number of unhappy people, some
of whom had spent the entire night there. I do not often agree with Michael O’Leary but am
forced to do so on this occasion. There is no backup system. There is no fail-safe. That is
perfectly obvious. The delays are unconscionable. Questions must be asked about
the fact that \116 million was spent on acquiring this apparently sophisticated
up-to-the-minute system for radar control from a French company. The company
has let us down badly. There should be a fail-safe system but there is not. Mr. O’Leary is
probably right in saying there will be a further backup in flights later this morning, with people
being delayed and flights being cancelled. People have missed international connections and
they will not be compensated. This has happened to me. The passenger, it seems, is almost
always wrong.
I thank the Leader warmly for his support for the suggestion that the Abbey Theatre be
relocated to O’Connell Street——
Senator Mary M. White: Hear, hear.
Senator David Norris: ——and probably to the GPO, which is a historic and iconic building
and one of the finest works of classical architecture from the early 19th century in the city. I
have received messages of support from some of the leading figures in the Irish theatre world
and from some iconic names known from the events of 1916. I have also received support from
groups of architects and from people representing businesses in the city centre. The matter is
not closed. I look forward to meeting with the Leader and with other representatives in this
area. It is important that instead of dismissing our national theatre out to some financial suburb
down on the docks we should have it right in the centre of the city where it is accessible by
metro, Luas, bus, bicycle and car and on foot.
Senator Terry Leyden: I acknowledge a letter I received from the Cathaoirleach this morning
about the redevelopment of Leinster House. I welcome the fact that this project has been
postponed for at least 12 months and, it is to be hoped, longer. In light of the current circumstances
of financial difficulty——
Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Senator means cutbacks.
Senator Terry Leyden: ——the last place we should be spending money is here in Leinster
House.
Senator Dominic Hannigan: The ceiling is falling in on the Senator now.
Senator Terry Leyden: We have to give a——
A Senator: The money is being spent because it is not safe.
Senator David Norris: We are going to be decanted. What a wonderful word.
An Cathaoirleach: We circulated that letter to all Members. It is a health and safety matter
and one for the board of works, and that takes priority at any time.
Senator Terry Leyden: The building has been postponed——
An Cathaoirleach: Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

Statements on Economic Policy - 9th July 2008

Statements on Economic Policy - 9th July 2008
Senator David Norris: I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to this debate.
Although there has been a change of ministers, Deputy Mansergh has occupied senior positions
of administration before entering parliamentary life and as such he is well equipped to deal
with any modest suggestions that may come from either side of the House.
I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, will agree that there is no avoiding the
fact that the situation is serious and that it came upon us with remarkable rapidity. I am one
of a number of people who believed this would happen. However, I was relying only on instinct
as unlike my colleague, Senator Ross, I do not have expertise in this area. The problems that
have arisen in respect of the construction industry are not entirely Irish; there are global factors
involved, including the situation in regard to subprime lending in America. All of these problems
are related to the neo-liberal economic policies and to the incarnation of greed as something
good as represented by what I call the Leeson syndrome, namely, people, removed from
the reality of ordinary people, speculating in the abstract on futures in the stock market.
I take an ideological slant on the matter with which I am sure not everybody will agree.
However, we all recognise the situation exists. Two questions come to mind. How long will this
economic downturn last? While it will end Government can bring it to a closure much more
rapidly than might otherwise happen. Also, how badly damaged will be the most vulnerable
elements in our society during that period? These are the people who most need to be protected
in this situation. I refer in particular to people dependant on social welfare, people in receipt
of health care and so on.
I agree there has been a collapse in the construction industry. However, that does not break
my heart. No group deserved it more. The arrogance with which the building and construction
industry treated people was unparalleled. I am sure the Minister of State will recall the stories
echoed in this House about people being gazumped by builders who tried to squeeze more
money out of them and did not honour their contracts. Everybody is aware of the attitude of
individual builders to ordinary people trying to secure their services. They treated people with
contempt. The regression was inevitable and necessary and my heart is not breaking over it. I
heard Members on this side of the House state some people in the construction industry were
earning \400 per week. I wish I had known who they were because I would have employed
every last one of them. One of the bellyaches was that these people were being undercut by
the Polish people. The Polish people work hard and turn up on time for work. They did not
go off to South Africa on safari or to their villas in Spain halfway through contracts as builders
here did. This is in some ways a salutary correction. However, I am concerned about those
caught in the mortgage market. Everybody had money shoved at them. It was unconscionable.
I do not have a mortgage or debts with the bank, thank God, but I remember the last time I
had and it was very unpleasant. However, in recent years I was in receipt of correspondence
from every bank in town. Letters poured in offering me \20,000 or \30,000. They could not
get rid of money quickly enough. We must bear in mind the arrogance of the banks and the
fact that they speculated in America. They also did so here many years ago and the taxpayer
had to bail them out. They should be put on notice that they will not be allowed to savage the
ordinary people who are being crucified by debts.
Senator MacSharry said that we should front-load the positive proposals because otherwise
they would not be implemented. I have a few such proposals. They may be very naive but I
would like to present them to the Minister. I whispered one or two of them into the ear of the
Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and also complimented him on taking this Godawful
job at what was the worst time in political life to be catapulted into it. However, when I
expressed my sympathy to him, he brushed it aside and said he was thoroughly enjoying the
experience. Good for him. He was absolutely right to tell the conference in Dublin Castle that
the building boom was coming to a shuddering halt. Why should he be criticised for this? A
little more truth from members of the Government would be welcome. We can stand the truth
and should hear it. The Minister also performed very well on “The Week in Politics” against
a formidable opponent, Deputy Bruton, who would make a superb Minister for Finance.
Senator Terry Leyden: Really. Perhaps in the next century.
Senator David Norris: We have about six months. If things continue to slide, they will become
really serious. At that point people will start talking about a Government of national unity
because there is damn all difference between the two principal conservative parties, Fine Gael
and Fianna Fa´ il. We might then have Deputy Bruton as Minister for Finance.
Senator Liam Twomey: We will be frightened then.
Senator David Norris: I will return to my suggestions. There are people of extraordinary
talent who have benefited the country through their financial wisdom or artistic brilliance,
including U2 and others.
Deputy Martin Mansergh: People such as the Senator.
Senator David Norris: Enormous amounts of money have been taken offshore. People have
every right to do this and we cannot punish them for it. Tony O’Reilly has plenty of money
somewhere around the place. Can we not lure them back? In the old days there were tax
incentive schemes, but we now have public programmes that are under-capitalised. Why not
say to the people concerned that now they have got away with it and have their swag offshore,
we will let them bring it back without taxing them on the profits? They would be doing the
work for which we do not have sufficient capital.
I ask the Minister of State to recommend to the Government that it carry out a business
efficiency audit in every Department. This would be useful, for example, for An Post which
owns a warehouse around the corner from me on which rent of \108,000 per year is paid. It is
empty. The only time it ever had anything in it was when one of the employees moved house,
at which time it contained sofas, chairs, tables, fridges and cookers. We ought not to have such
waste. We cannot afford that flab. I also ask the Minister of State to ensure the capital programmes
are kept as intact as possible. This is important. The Government should not lose its
nerve. For goodness’ sake, it should not yet again let the Frank McDonalds of this world
win and cancel the metro project. It is important that we give a commitment to carrying out
this project.
I am glad the Government has decided not to go ahead with the wage increases for all of us
here in Leinster House, although I love such increases. I am as greedy as anyone else and my
snout has been in the trough, as was said here. I will accept that cliche´ . I snuffled up whatever
I could. It is painful that we are not to receive our 1%, but the decision was the right one and
I will tell the House why. When I was running the Hirschfeld Centre, I made it my practice
not to ask anybody to do something I would not do. I worked on the door, behind the cash
register and cleaned the drains manually when they became clogged. That meant that I could
ask any other person in the organisation to do these things because I would not ask them to
do anything I would not do myself. The financial implications of cancelling our wage increase
are not worth a tuppenny damn, except psychologically. If we did not endure the pain, we
would not be in a position to ask anybody else to do so.

Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2008 - Second Stage Debate - 9th July 2008

Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2008 - Second Stage Debate - 9th July 2008
Senator David Norris: I thank Senator Quinn for sharing his time with me and, following the
changing of the guard, I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment,
Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Michea´ l Kitt. Numerous Ministers of State are coming
and going.
Although the Minister of State’s speech summed up the problem well, this constitutes a weak
method of addressing it and does not go half far enough. He indicated problems with which all
Members are familiar. There is a problem regarding excessive drinking in Ireland that leads to
all kinds of social disorder. The reason is known, namely, availability and price. The Government
has done nothing for years on price. It now has begun to act at the margins of availability
and this limited initiative is to be welcomed.
I refer to licensing and the reference to the District Court. I got into great trouble because
I stated on television that I did not know what kind of lunatics were handing out licences. I
stated they seemed to be handing them out like Smarties, were merely rubber-stamping the
applications and that I had seen this in court. While this was the case, it was 15 years ago and
at the time I made the remarks only one person was engaged in this process. Although I did
not know of his existence and had not heard of his name, he sued. While that was the Judiciary’s
response, its members should have considered the situation. I repeat the phrase, “rubber
stamp”. While 40 gardaı´ may be involved in respect of applications from approximately 100
people, the gardaı´ usually do not even give evidence.
The Minister of State should recommend what should happen for inclusion in this Bill or a
subsequent one. The Garda should be present and should be represented by gardaı´ with knowledge.
If a single garda is to be responsible for a series of areas, that officer must be supplied
with the information. Moreover, a certificate should be issued each year stating that a particular
pub has not transgressed. It was a rubber stamp previously and I stand over that. Moreover, it
still is. I recall a case in which the local community, the Garda and the civic authorities objected
to a licence for a premises that was sending people who were absolutely stocious spewing out
on to the streets of inner city Dublin. Although all three elements objected, the licence was
granted. One is entitled to know the reason. Perhaps the judge was constrained or perhaps the
gardaı´ had not been obliged to give evidence. However, even when they did, it was not taken
into account and this is worrying.
I am pleased the Bill includes provisions to take drink from people. Such provisions existed
years ago, when I was a child. They may have been under the Vagrancy Acts or similar
measures that may have been abolished. However, there is a place in Marlborough Street, close
to where I live in the north inner city, that looks after drunks and druggies. At a certain hour,
they are moved on and a herd of them migrate. They collect extra supplies from Booze 2 Go
and sit on the steps in North Great George’s Street. The 18th century houses there have wide
steps that serve as a nice platform for them. They urinate, excrete, have sex and do everything
else on the steps and no one does a thing about it. Why? This must be addressed.
The problem also arises from the fact that the abolition of the groceries order was a terrible
mistake that encouraged below-cost selling by supermarkets, which promoted themselves using
alcohol sales. Every little huxter’s shop in Dublin stocks beer, wine and spirits up to its rafters.
While the issue is addressed to some extent in this Bill, this is not due to idealism but to the
strength of the drinks lobby and is to even the playing field for publicans.
I have been briefed by people from the nightclub industry and am partially, if not 100%,
sympathetic. I do not care whether people drink or whether drink is available around the clock.
It is not a question of when people drink, but of their behaviour. As long as nightclubs are
managed well, I do not care a damn. It has been put to me that the reduced opening times on
Sundays will put a large number of people out of work and the Minister should reconsider this
proposal. Moreover, it is regulating the behaviour of the proprietors. I happen to know the
people who briefed me on this issue. They are well-established and come from good
background.
I also note that a section deals with containers. This legislation was rushed and the National
Youth Council was not involved, although it should have been. The advice given by various
professional groups was either lumped in or ignored. However, for example, a suggestion had
been made that, arising from the other aspects of nuisance, that is, the distribution of containers,
bottles, empties and so on around the place, there should be a point of sale indicator
on them. In other words, there should be some form of labelling so that one could identify
where such items were bought. This is an important point and I ask the reason it was not
included in the Bill.
I probably will table two amendments, although it possibly is futile. The first will require
certificates from the Garda because there is no point in having 40 gardaı´ in court if, as I
witnessed, they are never asked a question about the reputation of a premises. The second will
pertain to the business of labelling. I am glad a tiny move has been made in this regard.
Moreover, I read with interest the comments of the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht
Affairs, Deputy O´ Cuı´v, who poured scorn and contempt on the futile little advertisement
notices that ask people to be careful while consuming an alcoholic product. What they mean
is that while people should drink as much as they possibly can and get absolutely twisted, such
notices constitute the producer’s fig leaf. MEAS is the name of the organisation and I have no
meas or respect for it as a serious problem exists. Half of the murders and manslaughters in
this jurisdiction have an alcohol ingredient, as do one third of the road traffic deaths. That
describes the scale of present behaviour. This Bill is doing what used to be called a baby step
in the game relievio. It is neither a scissors step nor a giant step but is a baby step. While it is
at least in the right direction, this legislation is rushed and does not go halfway far enough.
Moreover, there are areas, such as those raised by my friends representing nightclubs, that
should be reconsidered. I ask the Government to consider the two areas in which I suggested
amendments might be made.

Order of Business - 9th July 2008

Order of Business - 9th July 2008
Senator David Norris: I want to raise the repercussions of the European court decision on
environmental matters, something I sought to raise last week but was unable to due to the
number of speakers. This area was touched on last week in the context of the Haulbowline
situation, which is disastrous. The company involved attempted to sift materials by shaking
them in mid air, thereby spreading contaminated dust. It is unbelievable.
The matter I wish to raise relates to this. Among the matters referred to at the time was a
question I attempted to raise on Stanley sawmills in Offaly that was ruled out of order due to
a lack of ministerial responsibility. The question was debated but I was unable to have it
discussed on the Adjournment. The courts have taken an interest in this matter
and I would like the Minister to come before the House to explain the latest
position. It was an unplanned development that sought retrospective planning
permission, which was granted, along with an EPA licence, without an environmental impact
survey. That is astonishing. All of the conditions were then broken and chromium 6, which is
carcinogenic, was released into the environment.
An Cathaoirleach: This matter may be before the courts and I would prefer if it was not
discussed here.
Senator David Norris: I can reassure you, a Chathaoirligh, that this matter is not before the
courts but you are right, it should be. The practices of the Environmental Protection Agency,
which have been held up to serious criticism, should be examined. There is a continuing hazard
and this matter should be reopened, if not here in the Oireachtas then in the courts. I agree
with the Cathaoirleach on this and thank him for the suggestion.
I also wish to raise the issue of this country’s approach to refugees. There is legislation
planned to deal with refugees and the agency responsible for them but can the Leader tell the
House when it will come before us? I am greatly worried because an individual, about whose
activities concerns were raised in court in Ireland, is purported to have his position confirmed,
named and stated in this legislation, which is inappropriate.
There are many concerns about this legislation and I wish to put a case on the record of this
House that was brought to my attention in recent weeks. A young Iranian man is in this
country at the moment; he left Iran after an investigation, having openly acknowledged a sexual
relationship with his male partner. He is being served in Ireland with a deportation order.
What kind of people run these services? Are they unaware that this man will be butchered on
his return to Iran? If so they are unique because everyone else knows.
Senator Mary M. White: Hear, hear. It is disgraceful.
Senator David Norris: This was confirmed by the deputy Iranian Foreign Minister in these
Houses last week. He said they will not do it from a crane on the back of a lorry anymore but
they will still do it. What are we doing and where is the accountability? In the name of the
Oireachtas, I demand that the practice of deporting a person under those conditions should be
ceased immediately.

Private Members Motion on Cancer Services - 2nd July 2008

Private Members Motion on Cancer Services - 2nd July 2008
Senator David Norris: I propose to share time with Senator Hannigan. I welcome the Minister, who is very good in the way she attends the House. She cannot always be pleasant because there is usually a good dose of criticism.
I have always agreed with the idea of centres of excellence. There is a problem politically because people are subjected to intense pressure in their local areas to keep the local hospital despite best practice. Centres of excellence are important.
The question of transport must be examined but in a country this size the best treatment is the most important factor even though there are great inconveniences with regard to transport.
Educating the public and self-diagnosis is important. Professor Keane made the point that cancers which affect the throat and so on are particularly nasty. Sometimes they can be detected during oral hygiene and visits to the dentist. Unfortunately, many of the people who develop this kind of cancer do not go pay frequent visits to the dentist. There is a question of diagnosing and identifying so that it is not given inappropriate treatment.
I refer to the question of certification. There have been a series of problematic areas, including the midlands, where there was difficulty with proper diagnosis, understanding of medical scans and treatment. In the Canadian system, there is a certification process every year. The senior consultant or a higher authority issues a certificate for all doctors underneath him or her. This states that the doctor is fit to practice, has had no accidents or problematic areas and can continue for another year. That is excellent and we should do that, which would lead to greater patient safety.
If one wants to find out what works, one should examine the way people practice. I am interested in evidence that is a partly anecdotal but partly verifiable, namely, that doctors send their families to centres of excellence. Then, for political reasons, they will bellyache about the closing of the local cottage hospital. That is as immoral and wrong as politicians mixing it.
My final point relates to Roscommon. I voted "No" in the Lisbon treaty referendum and campaigned for a "No" vote. I was clear about the reasons for this, namely, bullying, opportunism, lack of democracy and the infractions in neutrality. I remember the people of Roscommon but that is not a reason to vote "No". It is the lowest form of politics to base one's campaign on some other issue.

Nuclear Test Ban Bill 2006 - Second Stage Debate - 2nd July 2008

Nuclear Test Ban Bill 2006 - Second Stage Debate - 2nd July 2008
Senator David Norris: The historical background to the Bill has been adequately and appropriately outlined by the two previous speakers. It is fair to note that since the time of the late Frank Aitken Ireland has played a distinguished and historic role in the banning of nuclear weaponry. It is something in which we can take considerable pride. Unfortunately, however, matters have not advanced as much as we would like. I do not mean my contribution to be just an attack on the United States but given that of the countries that have failed to sign and ratify the treaty it is the country to which Ireland is closest, it is important that we, as friends of the US in general, although in my case not friends of the current regime there, should make known our views.
I wish to put a question to the Minister. I note that there are more than 300 seismic stations to monitor the treaty but Ireland is not included among them. That is a large number and the stations must be scattered across the globe. Is there a particular reason for Ireland not being included? It would be an important role for Ireland. I would welcome our co-operation in this technical manner and I believe we have the expertise to do it.
It is easy for Ireland to sign this treaty, so let us not over-estimate the courage of what we are doing. We are unlikely to start manufacturing nuclear weapons. It is also highly unlikely that there would be a terrorist threat in this country, although it is always possible. However, one must be conscious of the proliferation of nuclear technology. When one considers the countries involved in this issue and the history of the past ten or 20 years, one can identify two sources of worry. The first is the result of the breakdown of the former Soviet Union. A great deal of nasty material that disappeared and is unaccounted for might have found its way into the hands of people who are not what one would describe as responsible. Adequate accounting and monitoring of this material is necessary but that has not yet been done.
The other issue is that the worst offender is Pakistan. We do not appear to appreciate that the man who headed that country's nuclear programme opened a type of one-stop-shop in Pakistan whereby he distributed these materials to the most appalling sources, apparently including North Korea. I welcome the fact that there has been some amelioration in the situation in North Korea and I hope that will continue. However, it is the last country to announce officially that it conducted a test. That was in 2006.
I welcome the fact that the United States has given an undertaking to observe the moratorium. However, the US is the only country that has employed nuclear weapons in active military engagement. That gives it a particular moral responsibility and I do not believe it has lived up to that responsibility. The US has constantly attempted to undermine the International Atomic Energy Agency and its reports. It sees the nuclear issue as an arm of foreign policy; there is little to do with principle involved.

That a nation refusing to ratify the treaty attempts to use moral arguments against Iran is extraordinary. I have no great time for Iran and President Ahmadinejad, while occasionally capable of acute analysis, is an unpredictable maverick who must be watched. However, we must be careful about what is transpiring and I ask the Minister of State to raise this matter at the highest possible levels.
I am concerned about the dying days of the Bush regime. For example, this morning's The Irish Times contains a report regarding a former CIA operative involved in disclosures concerning a number of legal cases he is taking. His claims are supported by those of others and the track records of the United States and Britain in managing such information. He maintains that there was a deliberate suppression of findings of the Central Intelligence Agency on Iran's nuclear programme. Political interference in and management of information about the precise nature of the perceived nuclear threat in Iran is cause for concern.
Coupled with this is the fact that the landmark intelligence report presented to the US Houses indicated that Iran had halted work on nuclear weapons design in 2003. At the time, this man and others were being instructed to falsify reports so that they could be used politically by the Administration. According to his lawyer:
[the] informant provided secret evidence that Tehran had halted its research into designing and building a nuclear weapon. Yet, when the operative sought to file reports on the findings, his attempts were "thwarted by CIA employees", according to court papers. Later he was told to "remove himself from any further handling" of the informant, the documents say.
This is a cause of concern, given that reports published this week and last tell of military exercises involving the Israeli air force and the air forces of member states of the European Union in what Israeli daily newspapers described as a test run for a raid on the Iranian nuclear facility. As I am not in a position to say whether this is true, will the Minister of State find out? Such a raid would be extraordinarily dangerous in light of the human, military and political catastrophe in the Middle East that it would unleash. In terms of environmental damage, one cannot calculate the impact of the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere as a result of this type of cowboy bombing raid. We must take this issue seriously, particularly when coupled with other situations.
My nature is to be a friend of the United States and its constitution, something I cannot say of President Bush, and not to be particularly friendly to the regime in Tehran. However, one must view these matters dispassionately. Like me, the Minister of State may have noticed the recent development of a slush fund of $400 million granted by Congress to President Bush and his Administration for use in covert operations in Iran for which he is not answerable to Congress. The committee charged by both American Houses with monitoring and seeking accountability in this respect is supine and has not lived up to its constitutional function. Since the award of the money, there has been a rash of abductions, kidnappings, bombings and assassinations and the funding of dissident groups within Iran. Coupled with the fact that President Bush has not ruled out a strike, anyone interested in a nuclear test ban must be concerned by these developments.
We would all wish for a world free of nuclear weapons. The more they proliferate, the more dangerous they are and the greater the mathematical possibility of an accident occurring or their falling into the hands of an irresponsible leader. Regrettably, there are many such leaders on the planet. When I was a child, I trusted adults because I believed that when one grew up, one gained sense. This is plainly not always true in political terms and we cannot rely on a number of countries' political leadership, particularly those on the list presented by the Minister to State to the House.
I ask the Minister of State to take my comments on board and to make representations regarding the situation in Iran. According to the IAEA and reports of the American intelligence services, it appears that the programme has been halted while remaining within legal boundaries. The United States has not ratified the treaty, but it seems to be preparing contingency plans for launching an assault against a supposed nuclear facility. I wish to signal a warning and to ask the Minister of State to make some inquiries as to whether we, as a small country, a friend of the United States and world peace and the historic source of much of the valuable work done on banning nuclear weapons, can exert some degree of pressure on the US so that it will not embark on this dangerous mission.

Order of Business - 2nd July 2008

Order of Business - 2nd July 2008

Senator David Norris: I support my colleagues in calling for a debate on the economy. I understand that debate will take place shortly, which I welcome. As a neutral, non-party observer, I note an amazing sea-change in the political atmosphere of this House in just one week. Last week, Senator Alex White made some very trenchant points about the economy. He was howled down and political charges were shot at him from the Government side of the House. This week he made precisely the same points, equally trenchantly, and he was listened to in silence. That tells us something about the seriousness of the situation which we all have finally grasped.
I ask that we examine the situation regarding the forthcoming visit of President Sarkozy. I understand he has indicated he is interested in meeting groups who had conscientiously voted and campaigned against the Lisbon treaty. On that point, reports in various newspapers indicated that 75% of those who voted "No" were really concerned about increasing militarisation and our neutrality, the reduction in the number of European Commissioners and the protection of our tax regime, while approximately 50% of people were confused about abortion. The newspapers headlined abortion as the main issue. Why? I hope this House can be instrumental in ensuring the real concerns of people on the "No" side are made clear to President Sarkozy.
I note the preliminary Order Paper references a debate on health once again. While the issue is very important, I wonder at the lack of imagination which means that we have such a debate almost every Wednesday. Then I noticed what seemed to be a quotation in classical Greek. I wondered if it was from Homer, Aristotle or Plato. Then I looked more closely and could not understand it. I thought my Greek had failed me. I read, "cals on te" but then I realised that it should read "calls on the Government to". Is this the European dimension overtaking us here in Leinster House?

Statements on the Situation in Zimbabwe - 1st July 2008

Statements on the Situation in Zimbabwe - 1st July 2008

Senator David Norris: I welcome that Senator Cummins described President Mugabe as a dictator. I did so in this House ten years ago. I was publicly reprimanded and a demand was made that I withdraw the comment. I am glad that I did not. That was on the occasion that President Mugabe visited UCD. While there when answering a question from a young woman who had great courage he continued to attack and trash the very vulnerable gay community in his country and, as Senator Cummins said, the Irish priests who educated him. He laid the blame for that vitriolic abuse of his own community at their door, which was very regrettable.
I also had the opportunity to meet Roy Bennett, a farmer and a member of the Zimbabwean Parliament whose rights were traduced. I met Morgan Tsvangirai in Liberty Hall some years ago and I formed a very high impression of him. While most of the Minister's speech was fine, when he spoke about President Mbeki's very considerable efforts, what were they? They were useless and hopeless. He is a disaster, as his own people know, including his brother who disowned him. People in South Africa are openly asking what President Mugabe has over President Mbeki and I ask the Minister to have a word with the South African ambassador to Ireland to express our very considerable reservations - at the very least - about President Mbeki's stance which is not what the South African people want. The overflow into South Africa has created a considerable distortion and xenophobic riots. Some 25% of the population of that country has haemorrhaged out of it because President Mugabe has used the instruments of Government as a weapon against his own people, which is shameful.
The Minister talked about the result of the election. It is astonishing that the utterly corrupt electoral commission was faced with such a disaster that even it and President Mugabe were forced to admit that Morgan Tsvangirai's party won the parliamentary election. He also overwhelmingly won the presidential election. I salute the enormous courage of the people of Zimbabwe who stayed away in droves. Those polling stations were empty despite people being abducted, raped, beaten and tortured. Yet they had the courage to stay away. We must stand with them because most of the other African people will not. What is happening in Sharm el-Sheikh is a disgrace. How many of those other African leaders are also suspect in the way in which they got into power and the way in which they abuse the rights of their own people?
We have a real crisis. The collapse of the currency is astonishing. Nothing like it has been seen since the days of the Weimar Republic that led to the Third Reich. The inflation rate is unimaginable and shows the total collapse of the economy. That man feels contempt for his own people and yet he has the gall to invoke Christianity. Does the Minister remember what President Mugabe called "operation sweep away rubbish"? The unfortunate people living in hovels around Harare were brutally swept out of the way by the police because he suspected that they might in their desperation at least have the courage to vote against him.
It is astonishing that Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a wonderful peaceful man, has called for intervention. Nelson Mandela at last spoke out on his 90th birthday and described this as a tragic flaw. Even the African Union observers have impugned this election. The Minister should not let them away with it. He should stand firm and make it clear that we all know that the election was a complete sham. What a tragedy that President George Bush and American democracy is a busted flush. Nobody could do other than laugh when President Bush called it a sham election. However, for once in his life he was right. It is a pity that the source of American democracy is so vitiated that it will have no effect other than to meet with a contemptuous repost from President Mugabe's henchmen.
I ask the Minister to stand firm on behalf of Roy Bennett and of the family which suffered an appalling plight when an elderly woman had lighted sticks placed in her mouth while her son and husband were beaten unconscious because of the situation. I urge the Minister not to weaken. He should take the strongest possible position, because, as my colleagues have said, we cannot ever be accused of coming from a colonial position.
Senator Dan Boyle: Among the chorus of condemnation that will rightly follow from every contribution to this evening's debate, none would be more eloquent than the contribution we heard on the Order of Business from Senator O'Toole.
Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.

Order of Business - 1st July 2008

Order of Business - 1st July 2008

Senator David Norris: I would welcome a debate on the economy and I share the concern expressed by colleagues, in particular with regard to the response of the Government to what is a critical economic situation, which appears to be to license every possible form of gambling, including casinos, which would not give one much encouragement.
I hope to take the opportunity to speak on Zimbabwe so I will not refer to it now except to repeat what I said in a previous intervention, namely, that President Mugabe was actually cheered out of the O'Reilly Hall when he attacked gay people, which was very regrettable.
On that subject, I am sorry that owing to a health problem I was not able to be in the House last week to mention the Government's proposed civil partnerships Bill. What is the timescale for this legislation? I will not be going into paroxysms of forelock-touching gratitude for an improvement in my second class status, which is what it is and nothing else. This is in defiance of the republican principles that are so often prated about in this House and in defiance of the very clear words of the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern.
On foot of this, I asked the appropriate authorities in this House if I could pass on pension rights to my partner. The answer was "No". That is the degree of equality we have. While I welcome that some of these matters will be addressed in the civil partnerships Bill, it is second class citizenship. The Minister's office contacted me subsequently and I understand a number of these matters will be dealt with under separate headings in the Finance Bill and the Social Welfare Bill. I am not sure this is the best way but I will consider it and it will probably have my support.
Nothing would be more likely or calculated to drive me into the arms of the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, than the opposition of people such as Senator Walsh on the Government side, and, regrettably, some on my own side.
An Cathaoirleach: Please, Senator. This is the Order of Business.
Senator David Norris: I must say this. I feel very angry, hurt, upset and disgusted by the mean-minded attempts by a small rump around here to drain every little atom of celebration, affirmation and joy from these proceedings. Those people are usually the ones who go on about being Christian. I deplore this. It makes me ashamed that there should be such mean-mindedness in this House.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator-----
Senator David Norris: If there is a real concern about marriage, I will sign up to anything. Where do Senators think I came out of? I came out of a long, good and happy marriage.
An Cathaoirleach: The point has been made.
Senator David Norris: I will support marriage and everything in terms of civil partnership and civil marriage for gay people. Members should ask that grandmother, Mrs. Gill, in the heartland of this country whether she is supporting marriage or attacking it. I know who is attacking marriage in this country. It is the people who do not know when they are well off, how to support marriage or how to be generous.

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs - Sub-Committee on Human Rights - 29th April 2008 - Situation in Tibet.

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs - Sub-Committee on Human Rights - 29th April 2008 -
Situation in Tibet: Discussion with Representative of the Dalai Lama.

Senator David Norris: I welcome the delegation. I have had the pleasure of knowing Mrs. Takla and Mr. Neil Steedman for many years. I have known Mr. Anthony O'Brien since our days together in Trinity College, the tie of which he is flashing today. I particularly welcome the calm, balanced, reasoned and moderate views expressed by Mrs. Takla which are very much in tune with the attitude taken by the Dalai Lama in very difficult circumstances. I share the concern expressed by my colleague, Deputy Higgins, that perhaps with this spiritual approach to politics there is always a risk he might be outflanked by the justifiable anger of younger Tibetan people. It must be very difficult to see the degradation of their country and the abuse of their revered institutions and religious personnel. It is a reproach against the international community that his single minded adherence to the principle of non-violence has not been rewarded in the way it has tragically been shown that violence sometimes is rewarded with political movement. I honour him and his government in exile for not taking that route.
Like Deputy Higgins, I have also visited Tibet, although it was a number of years ago. I went there on behalf of UNPO and we did not declare ourselves. It was, to a certain extent, a semi-secret mission relating to human rights. One of the most moving things happened in the Barco Lu, where a group of monks passed us pieces of paper with messages written in pencil which indicating that they were not Chinese, that they loved and respected the Dalai Lama and that he represented Tibet for them. They took a great risk in doing so. For that reason I was immensely moved by the press conference we saw on television. It was supposed to show the freedom of Tibet but the monks became very agitated, with some of them in tears. However, they managed to get the message out of Tibet. That is crucial.
If and when the Olympic flame passes through Tibet, it should not pass through in the spirit of its originator, the Nazi Government in Germany in 1936. It was a triumph of fascist will over the wishes of the people. It should, instead, pass through in the real freedom of providing an opportunity for the rest of the world to have access through its reporters and the media. I honour Reporters Without Borders, a parallel organisation to Médicins sans Frontières. It has done us a service through its protests. We need to travel with the flag if it passes through. It is an intense provocation and nothing other than grinding the noses of Tibetans in the dirt to show who is master. That is how the flag will be used. At the very least, the international media should be permitted to accompany the flag, travel through the country and see areas outside the narrow route chosen.
I was most interested to hear Mrs. Takla use the word "country" and speak about the Tibetan people. I am sorry we have allowed ourselves to be surreptitiously moved into accepting the One-China policy. For many years this was resisted by Mr. Frank Aitken, Mr. David Andrews and our other Foreign Ministers. However, it appears that it has been tacitly accepted as a result of a mechanical adjustment in the European Union. I am sure Mrs. Takla is aware of the fact that Deputy John Gormley of the Green Party spoke out on the issue and precipitated a withdrawal by the Chinese ambassador from his party's conference. The reason given for the withdrawal was that Deputy Gormley had used the word "country".

That raises questions allied to what Deputy Higgins was discussing, as to what a genuine autonomy might be within the Chinese system. I do not regard that system as a Communist one. China was a tragically failed experiment as far as Communism is concerned. I do not believe that Mao was a Communist. There were some wonderfully idealistic people who believed in that doctrine but I do not believe he did. The system in China now is an extraordinary and rather dangerous form of mutant capitalism.
With regard to autonomy, obviously areas such as foreign affairs would be excluded, and defence, the entire military business. What was mentioned was areas such as respect for religion and religious ministry, and so on. In the best circumstances there might be negotiation on those issues. I am not certain about that but it would be something to pursue.
The problem is the environment. I do not see Beijing yielding on the environment because it is a wonderful resource to be pillaged. That is one of the reasons they are there, to extract various ores, including ore that is used for certain radioactive purposes, for nuclear fuels and so on. The Chinese have already had a very serious negative impact on the environment in Tibet and I fear that they regard it merely as a resource to be plundered in the interest of central government.
I find it difficult to believe that Beijing would yield control of that issue but if it could happen it would be marvellous. We should all push for that, or at least push for proper environmental controls and regulations within Tibet, whoever is in charge. What they are doing there is dangerous. Water supply, control of rivers and other such issues have repercussions not just for Tibet, China and that whole area, but for the global climate. The scale is vast as everything in China is.
I welcome the fact that Mrs. Takla has suggested a fact-finding delegation arising from this committee. If a delegation is viable it should go as soon as possible. I am indifferent as to whether I am part of it but I certainly believe it would be useful. It must be a small delegation. I do not know whether the budget might sustain it but it would be no harm to make the request. That might put the wind up the Chinese. I might refuse to go because I had a rather warm exchange of correspondence with the Chinese ambassador. When one is an Independent, one can do these things and I deliberately sowed into my letter terms such as "colonialist exploitation", "imperialism" and so on. It provoked a wonderful shriek of rhetoric from Shrewsbury Road or wherever the Chinese Embassy is.
I am sure that Mrs. Takla is aware that an invitation has issued from this committee to His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. I have also initiated moves to investigate if he can be invited to address the Senate, the upper House of Parliament. I foresee some difficulties there but I hope to be able to get over them because, following advice from my excellent friends, I couched the invitation in a particular fashion, namely, that His Holiness should be invited as the world's best-known proponent of non-violent political action and as the winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace. The fact that he was invited to the US Congress and that there was no difficulty in that provides a wonderful precedent as far as I am concerned. I understand that my colleagues in the Senate are enthusiastic about this but we must overcome what I have no doubt will be the hesitations of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
On the other hand, we are supposed to be a free Parliament. It should be up to the Senate and committees such as the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to make this decision. There will be an opportunity to cause some turbulence if it becomes apparent that officials in the Department have stymied this against the wishes of the people. His Holiness will be in Europe at a certain time but obviously it is a question of programming and scheduling. If those two invitations were to arise simultaneously it might indeed be worth drawing his direct attention and I suggest this to Mrs. Takla although I understand there may be difficulties. In such a case there might be what that lamentable figure, Mrs. Thatcher, used to describe as a "double whammy".
The other day on my way to a demonstration for the Palestinians - I point this out to Deputy Higgins - I passed through O'Connell Street where there was a very significant demonstration by local Chinese businesspeople. They watch a lot of Chinese television and they have swallowed the line that it is the Dalai Lama's "splittist" clique who are doing all these things, trying to spoil the party and the Olympic Games. I spoke to some of them and they asked me what I knew about it, and if I had ever been to Tibet. They thought they had me there because I was merely an ordinary Dublin Joe. I said that I had and asked if they had been there. They had not but they had a lot of literature with them.
This is a subject which should be addressed because I believe that it is a line that the Chinese will push in the Western world. As Minister for Information, Mrs. Takla might be in a position to do this. They raised the issue of feudalism that existed before the Chinese invasion. They attempted to maintain that the Dalai Lama was an absolute, ruthless and cruel monarch who presided over a filthy feudal system where the majority of inhabitants was enslaved, their noses ground into the dirt, yoked to their yaks and all the rest of it. A simple but clear, historical and honest answer to that is that that period was very long ago in a remote part of the world where conditions did not equate to what we in Europe understand as democracy. One should be aware that this is the line being pushed and it is very dangerous and damaging. It would be useful to provide people such as myself, who strongly support Tibet, with the facts, the answer and the context. The Chinese will be very adept at wrenching out of historical context and presenting in an ahistorical way any little blemish that pre-existed in Tibet. I welcome and thank the delegation.
Chairman: It might be important to mention at this stage, so that the delegation will know it, that at the last meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, the situation in Tibet was discussed at great length. Some members here may be aware that that committee also agreed to extend an invitation to the Dalai Lama to come to Dublin and speak to it, whenever that might suit his diary. I presume that the invitation is taking its own course.
Having heard my two colleagues, I believe that the most important thing is to have some form of meaningful dialogue. There are people in this Parliament and indeed some in this committee, and in the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, who have been instrumental in the success of the Irish situation whereby today we enjoy a peaceful island. That was done through tedious, long and hard work, all the time going back to the table, by way of negotiation and dialogue and compromise on all sides. It was a long and difficult process but success came with it.
Regarding a visit to Tibet, as mentioned by Deputy Higgins and Senator Norris, I do not see a difficulty in the committee proceeding down that road. The make-up of the delegation would be a matter for the committee to decide. If we were to do that, it would be important that prior to doing so, we would invite the Chinese authorities before the committee so that we would be seen to play a fair game.

Senator David Norris: I have a practical suggestion. If it is possible for us to go, and it may not be, I believe we should include in the delegation the professional services of a Tibetan interpreter. If the Chinese were to provide an interpreter it is often the case that such an interpreter does not report what the people are saying.


Chairman: That is a fair point. We are somewhat away from that but it is an idea we can record at this stage. If we were to participate at some meaningful level, whatever the outcome, I believe it should be done in a careful progressive manner in the knowledge of what we want to achieve at each step on the way. One of the first initiatives of this sub-committee should be to write to the appropriate Chinese authority. I shall be guided by the secretariat, but I presume this would be the Chinese ambassador to Ireland. We can formulate the letter later among ourselves and perhaps send a copy of it to other people, as appropriate. We should try to initiate matters in that fashion. I do not know what Mrs. Takla's views are in that regard, but she might, perhaps, respond to what has been said in the wider context.
Mrs. Kesang Y. Takla: Senator Norris mentioned the importance of the environment, and I should like to say a few words in that regard. The environment is something which is of concern to the global community, not just the Himalayan region or the Tibetan people. Already, because of the environmental destruction, both in China and Tibet, that part of the Himalayan region is in real danger. Because of the high altitude and the condition of the air, it really needs to be attended to. China, I believe, in some ways realises this. We have been crying out for protection of the environment for many years, and of course there is an enormous amount of deforestation and mining, even to the extent that there has been some discussion about Tibet becoming like the northern region of China and so on.
This issue is already of concern to the countries neighbouring China and Tibet, and will affect all of us. Of course one hears a great deal about the damage being done by the ice region melting and so on. This is of concern and in order to save the world's environment it needs to be addressed by the Chinese Government. It is of concern not only for the Tibetan people but for all of us. It is a crucial issue that needs urgent attention. I appreciate the Chairman's decision to try to send a fact-finding delegation to Tibet, which is very important.
At this point, given the Chinese policy of being very stubborn about everything and accusing everybody but themselves, this does not help in finding a solution for the Tibetan people, much less for the people of China. Many Chinese scholars and students have written to their Government urging it to stop telling lies, have open dialogue with His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, and his representative and treat the Tibetan people in a more appropriate manner. These appeals are coming from the Chinese people, our Chinese friends.
It is high time the Chinese Government was given enough support and encouragement to look at the situation in a practical manner. When we ask for genuine autonomy, we are seeking something we believe may be considered by China. According to the written constitution of China, it claims to be giving autonomy in some regions of Tibet. Of course they have broken up the three historic provinces of Tibet into different regions and given them separate powers of autonomy and so on - different provinces with different names. If that is the position, China simply has to define what type of autonomy it wants to give. That can be resolved only if and when we can sit across the table and hold discussions on what the future is to be for Tibet.
For this to take place we need all the support we can get. If China were to open up in response to the international pressure that exists, it would be good for the Chinese also. We have been crying for help for 50 years. Not enough has been done, and what is happening now is the result. How long can we continue to let matters go on as they are? I plead with the sub-committee to do all it can to urge the Government, Oireachtas and the Irish public to support our cause. We have pinned great hope on the Irish people because we have strong connections with Ireland. The United Nations has adopted three resolutions on human rights in this regard. It has agreed there should be self-determination for the people of Tibet but the situation since then has worsened, not improved. I appeal to the committee to do what it can.
Chairman: I thank Mrs. Takla. Mr. O'Brien indicated he wanted to say something.
Mr. Anthony O'Brien: There are a couple of points as regards information which should answer some of the issues raised by Deputy Higgins and Senator Norris. I was talking yesterday to a friend of mine, Zhao Ming, whose name the committee will remember. He was the Trinity Chinese student who was arrested, imprisoned and badly tortured. He works as a journalist and was on the pro-Chinese demonstration in O'Connell Street in his capacity as a reporter. He said most of the Chinese students, when he asked them why they were there, said they did not actually know. They had just been told by the Chinese students' association in Ireland, which is run by the embassy, that they were to go to O'Connell Street and celebrate the Olympics. Other than that, they did not know why they were there.
We heard in a report from Tibet this morning that local Tibetans along the route the torch will take are as we speak being trained in what to say to Western media. It looks as if they will let, as they have done before, some hand-picked journalists speak to Tibetans and hear what the Chinese want those Tibetans to say.
Since this is the Sub-Committee on Human Rights, I thought the meaning of the phrase "patriotic re-education" for monasteries should be explained. I should like to put this quotation on the sub-committee's record from the Tibet Autonomous Region patriotic education for monasteries handbook No. 4, Policy on Religion, dated May 2002. Section 2.9 (b) states:
Concerning religious belief, Communists use persuasion and education but not force or commands. They give honest guidance but do not bully or beat people into changing their minds, using democratic means rather than coercion. Since such issues cannot be resolved through the use of force, which may even cause very great damage, and as long as there are people with religious faith, the party and the Government has devised the policy of individual freedom of belief to allow people to believe in accordance with their personal choice.
That is from the Chinese Government's handbook on patriotic re-education in Tibet.
Mr. Neil Steedman: I shall first of all clarify that the role in which Mrs. Takla now represents His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, is as kalon for information and international relations in the Tibetan Government in exile. Effectively in our terms she is the Minister for Foreign Affairs. She referred to Tibet as a war zone, and that sums it up very neatly. Tibet is de jure a country still under colonial occupation, no matter how many countries choose to ignore that and just look at the de facto situation. Under international law de jure means that it is a country under colonial occupation. It is the size of western Europe.
To put in context for the sub-committee what "war zone" means right now, hundreds of people have been killed and thousands injured, many seriously, who cannot go to hospital, although dying from their wounds. An estimated 5,000 or more have been arrested. The Chinese admit to having arrested over 4,000 people. Many hundreds, possibly thousands, have fled to the mountain areas, or are effectively being held hostage in monasteries or in their homes with water cut off and food supplies stopped, so starvation is a real possibility.
In the prisons, people are being beaten, tortured and killed as we speak. Bodies are being piled up and not returned to relatives. This we know from many phone calls to Tibetans in exile from Tibetans in Tibet. I had a report to the effect that yesterday morning, in Tibetan time, in the Kham region in the eastern part of the country which is now part of Sichuan, the Chinese have imposed a levy on Tibetan families of 1,000 yuan per adult, approximately €100, to pay for the army, believe it or not, which they have had to send in to suppress them. This has involved hundreds of thousands of soldiers. As in the past, when they have executed Tibetans, the Tibetan families have had to pay for the bullet or the body to be returned, now they have to pay for the army to be sent in, to be fed and to suppress them.
More recently, the media and tourists have been expelled. Mrs. Takla referred to the two very controlled groups of journalists, which backfired on the Chinese.

More recently the Chinese have been backing away from allowing the media to accompany the torch relay up Mount Everest and through Tibet. They are placing ever greater restrictions. Members may not be aware that The Times of London carried a report on, I believe, 25 April that the International Olympic Committee had even planned for the possibility that deaths might occur while the torch was being taken through Tibet. It issued a secret memorandum, which is no longer secret because The Times has it, to its more than 520 national Olympic committees giving them the appropriate phraseology to use if and when deaths occurred. If that is not an irresponsible action by the so-called International Olympic Committee of human dignity, then I do not know what is.
Senator David Norris: In the light of this very serious news, should the committee not write to the Olympic Council of Ireland to ask whether it is in possession of this memorandum and, if so, whether it will make it available to us?
Deputy Michael D. Higgins: I agree.
Chairman: I do not see a problem with that. Having spoken to the clerk, we hope to have a meeting in the first fortnight of May in which case we might be in a position to have clarity.
Mr. Neil Steedman: I will add one more point. The important issues emphasise what we have been saying. The first is to have immediate access and free reporting for both media and diplomatic representatives in order that we will know and to limit what the Chinese are doing. The second concerns what will happen in the medium to long term. The international community must maintain the pressure on the Chinese Government about Tibet and human rights in China as a whole. This should not just happen up to the time of the Olympic Games. It must take this issue seriously as a global issue of human rights of great standing and importance. It must plan how it will continue to deal with this issue long after the Olympic Games. To paraphrase an Irishman, "The Tibetans aren't going to go away, you know."
Chairman: I thank Mrs. Takla and the delegation for attending and the very informative presentation and exchange we have had. From our discussion no one can doubt the concern that remains regarding the abuse of human rights in Tibet, as in the case of reports of human rights abuses anywhere in the world. Equally, it is important for us to acknowledge some of the encouraging reports I read over the weekend of China having indicated its willingness to engage in dialogue with His Holiness, the Dali Lama. The question is how positive a development it would be and how fruitful an outcome it might have. However, perhaps we should not say that at this stage if there is such a willingness. As I mentioned, in the light of our experience in Ireland, at least if there is dialogue, there is a hope something can come to fruition.
Senator David Norris: The chance to meet face to face.
Chairman: I hope that will happen also. There was a time when people in Ireland would not shake hands or sit at the same table and we have experienced a U-turn. Dialogue is very important.
I mentioned we could write to the Chinese authorities. We mentioned it could be the ambassador. In that communication we could express our desire that the dialogue should be substantive.
Deputy Michael D. Higgins: And meaningful.
Chairman: Yes.
Senator David Norris: That is an excellent suggestion.
Chairman: We should move slowly on this one. The Olympic Games will take place, but there is a bigger issue that will not be resolved quickly.
Deputy Michael D. Higgins: We should write a good strong letter. An issue that must be addressed is that of having a two-legged relationship regarding diplomacy. We can send a jumbo load of people willing to conduct trade and claim to have a separate dialogue on human rights. At a certain point we need to be for real and have an integrated view when we talk about the relationship within Ireland and the People's Republic of China on the issue of Tibet and so on. It needs to be approached in that way. I will be very happy if a letter is sent stating we are supportive-----
Chairman: We will do other things. I know some committee members expressed concern about whether we would have funds available for a fact-finding mission to Tibet.
Deputy Michael D. Higgins: We could scrap several of the meetings we attend in Europe and such places.
Chairman: I again thank Mrs. Takla and the delegation.

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs - Sub-Committee on Human Rights - 9th April 2008

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs - Sub-Committee on Human Rights - 9th April 2008
Senator David Norris: I regret I had to leave the meeting for a moment and will have to do so again because I am being briefed on the very important matter of the availability of legal aid support through the free legal aid centres.
I very much welcome the information given. I am afraid I am rather eurocentric and tend to think elections are pretty good the closer one gets to the centre of Europe and that the further one migrates from it, the more questionable they become. I am very glad observers from Ireland have been made available. Although I have not undertaken this task, a number of my colleagues have done so quite widely outside Europe where it is even more necessary.
One of my colleagues who is very conservative economically was one of those charged with monitoring the election in Nicaragua where the Sandinistas came to power.
It carried additional weight precisely because of his strong conservative views in that he was able, independently, to say that those elections had been free and fair and the result was justified.
The concern of those of us in the Upper House, which was remarked on during the past week, does not apply to the elections in Europe; elections in Europe were not mentioned this week. However, there was strong concern about the conduct and delayed result of elections in Zimbabwe. I am aware the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe was involved, but I wonder if it would not be appropriate to give training to people on the understanding that they can apply this expertise not only in Europe. Are there any provisions for wandering outside Europe, so to speak? If requested, would the OSCE be in a position to make monitors available in these difficult circumstances? Does the director, Ambassador Strohal, believe there are different criteria?
Is every election different to such a marked degree that a different kind of professional training would be required in the different circumstances? I assume there are local domestic arrangements. To what extent do parliamentarians who, like taxi drivers, tend to see themselves as experts on virtually everything, get training, or is it a case of professional monitoring? It would be an extremely useful process for politicians to be trained. I am happy to acknowledge my ignorance - which is one of Ireland's greatest natural resources - and am willing to learn. I do not believe I would be competent to monitor an election in a fully professional way. I have picked up a certain amount from news broadcasts about what to look for but some minimal training would be required, particularly for persons so enriched by ignorance as myself and perhaps some of my other colleagues.

H. E. Mr. Christian Strohal: I thank the members for their comments, interest and questions. I will begin with the situation elsewhere in the world. I am not sure I agree that what happens in Zimbabwe or Nicaragua is of higher interest or of more concern than what happens in the OSCE region for several reasons. What happens in Zimbabwe and every other country is a concern in terms of respect for basic international standards. However, what is important about the OSCE region is not only what is happening or the concerns about the region but also the region as a possible model. Are we better? This is the northern part of the globe, essentially from Vancouver to Vladivostok. Is the region from Vancouver to Vladivostok living up to international expectations? Is it living up to the expectations vis-à-vis global leadership in at least part of that region? Leadership begins at home. Is the region in a position to tell others in the world how to develop democratic institutions and processes against the backdrop of what is happening in the region? A non-election related example is the loss of credibility of the proclaimed leadership of the United States on human rights given Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.

H. E. Mr. Christian Strohal: That has had a negative effect on the capacity for leadership and has increased the demand on the European Union and European Governments for strong leadership in these matters.
In addition, not only in terms of global leadership but in terms of repercussions, the central Asian countries, for example, are OSCE participating states. They come from a Soviet past. They are young countries. They are between various global factors - the big neighbour to the north, the big neighbour to the east, American strategic interests and European strategic interests. They are examining options for their political, democratic, economic and other development. We have not only a major responsibility vis-à-vis those countries; it is also affecting the larger region. They are neighbouring Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a partner in co-operation, as it is called, for the OSCE, that is, it is not bound by the same commitments but it is a partner. Everybody concerned is examining how to increase the involvement of the OSCE in some aspects of developing border management, election-related capacity and a number of other areas in a place like Afghanistan.
We are also examining institutional relationships, namely, the OSCE versus other regional organisations and the Organisation of American States and the African Union. An effort has been ongoing for some time at a rather slow pace to enhance co-operation with the African Union, particularly on election-related matters.
It is good to have the European Union monitor elections in Zimbabwe. I had an interesting discussion with Irish election observers. I was asked whether the EU has a stronger corporate identity when it observes elections than when Irish observers go as part of an OSCE mission. The question ignored the fact that the OSCE is observing itself whereas the EU is observing other countries. The EU can act as an observer elsewhere, but the OSCE observes itself. Perhaps we could encourage a stronger role, for example, for the African Union in addition to the work of the European Union in becoming involved in monitoring the situation, as is being done by the OAS and by some loose groupings such as La Francophonie or the Commonwealth. That is also an area where the OSCE is developing a role.

The role of parliamentarians cannot be over-estimated. It is crucial. It is not only crucial in election observation but in a broad range of issues. We would not dare to train parliamentarians because I would not disagree with your comparison with taxi drivers off the record. We are certainly happy to engage. We are happy to do briefings.

Senator David Norris: I apologise, I must leave to speak in the Seanad. I am glad I heard Mr.
Strohal's comments. I would have liked to probe further with the ambassador issues such as that relating to Craig Millar who was in one of these central Asian republics and was fired by the British Government precisely because he told the truth about human rights. I regret I have to leave the meeting but I must look after the poor.
H.E. Mr. Christian Strohal: I thank the Senator for attending. On the role for parliamentarians in other parts of the human dimension legislative process, we are increasingly asked by a number of OSCE participating states not alone to consider individual pieces of legislation and how they relate to international commitments, but to consider how the legislative process can be made more inclusive and transparent. In a way, we are strengthening our work with parliaments outside election times on a number of long term issues relating to the role of parliaments, how to strengthen parliament and how to strengthen work between government and opposition parties around legislation and the legislative process. This is where we would be happy to see more engagement from parliamentarians from our own parliamentary assembly, the Council of Europe, the European Parliament and national parliaments. I accept a question of time and resources arises in this regard. One of the things I will recommend to my successor is that he or she further strengthen the parliamentary dimension of some of our work in the support we provide to transformation, to reform and transition processes in a number of countries and, in particular, within the former Soviet Union.