Statements on the Morris Tribunal - 30th October 2008

Statements on the Morris Tribunal - 30th October 2008
Senator David Norris: I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution on this subject. Both Houses of the Oireachtas and the people are deeply in the debt to former Deputy Jim Higgins and Deputy Brendan Howlin. The cardinal point is that without them, the Morris tribunal would not have existed. They did not make allegations but rather reported them while behaving in a very proper way. They did not abuse the privilege of the House or name people while in it. They did exactly as Mr. Cosgrave had done with Jack Lynch and went to a senior Minister with the allegations. When the allegations were investigated, the vast and overwhelming majority of them were found to be true. Our first point should be our gratitude for the proper behaviour of these two Deputies.
The findings indicate there was a serious incident and the Garda was called upon because a man was dead. One garda was off having a drink and the other two were on a meal break so they would not attend a roadside accident where somebody had died. They did not preserve the scene, although it was initially accepted it was a hit and run accident. They then started to frame the McBreartys. There was no evidence and yet they levelled charges against Frank McBrearty and Mark McConnell. They proceeded to use a plant and there were 68 prosecutions over an 18-month period.
The allegations properly passed on by these Deputies included the manufacturing of bombs, which we all heard about from the evidence given. It was re-enacted brilliantly on Vincent Browne’s show, which detailed the grinding of chemicals in coffee grinders. It was a mad scenario. The allegations also included the planting of bombs, use of bogus informers and the framing of innocent people. The allegations upheld included allegations of using bogus informers, planting IRA bombs, planting a gun and explosive device to arrest innocent people and coercing murder statements from witnesses.
Gardaí lied under oath at the tribunal and then covered up the activities of corrupt senior officers out of a sense of misplaced loyalty. That was in a case where the disciplinary regime was totally deficient, as a member could hardly be sacked for anything and an answer could not even be extracted. Members did not have to explain actions to a superior officer. That was not confined to Donegal.
Thanks to the action of former Deputy Jim Higgins and Deputy Howlin, we have a new regime, which the Minister of State referred to, where gardaí are compelled to furnish answers. A register of informers has been introduced and there is a whistleblowers charter and so on. I remind the House this would not have happened without former Deputy Higgins and Deputy Howlin. The accusations against them are misplaced. They went to the Minister and gave the information to him in confidence, as had been done in the past. No garda’s name was mentioned in public utterances.
They have been told they should have investigated the allegations. How could they have done this? It took the Morris tribunal six and a half years, millions of euro and the power to compel witnesses to do so. Which of us could possibly expend that kind of energy and dynamism? It is a farce to have expected them to investigate the allegations. In any event, a decision in the Abbeylara case places considerable restrictions on the capacity of elected representatives to intervene in a matter investigating a private citizen.
The allegations were not made by the two Deputies. One allegation passed on was found not to be true but we should follow the matter a little further. When the information was passed to the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy John O’Donoghue, he decided to investigate. The allegations against these two senior gardaí were investigated but even after the investigation, the Minister decided to include the allegations in the terms of reference of the tribunal. If there is any responsibility, it would bounce back to the then Minister, Deputy John O’Donoghue, who after having the matter investigated still found the charges serious enough to be included in the terms of reference of the Morris tribunal. That completely exonerates former Deputy Higgins and Deputy Howlin.
We have reason to be grateful to the Morris tribunal. Although it has been expensive and lawyers make much money from such things, that is the responsibility of the Government that established them. The Government should have considered payment in the terms of reference as much money was spent. Nevertheless, it is good to think we are improving these matters and this kind of corruption will be restricted if not completely stamped out.
I have the highest regard for the Garda which serves us well. It had a systemic problem and then the characteristic few rotten apples.
This matter is not yet finished. This was a case of a couple of people who were framed by gardaí. In the previous session I raised the case of a man prominent in Dublin business life who was framed by certain elements within that circle. The Minister of State may find the records of this matter.
While I will not name the man, he was head of ISME and the matter received much publicity after I raised it in this House. The fraud squad was involved and while I do not suggest it was deliberately corrupt or anything else, although a series of meetings has been arranged between the principal in the case and the fraud squad over the years, they never meet. Letters no longer are replied to, meetings are arranged and people travel long distances only to meet a closed door. I will conclude on this point. The Minister of State should take up this matter and I can supply him with the relevant information. He should establish the reason the fraud squad continues to pussyfoot around and does not meet this man against whom serious allegations were made and subsequently disproved. He is trying to get to the bottom of the matter. They agree to meet him but then no one is there and there are no appointments. I do not understand what is going on and I believe this is a serious case.
Everyone, including Members as public representatives and the Garda Síochána, the guardians of our peace, must be accountable. To state the Garda must be accountable is not to state that widespread corruption exists or that one should be suspicious of all police. While the Garda does a good job, by and large, when it falls down on the job it has disastrous implications for all of us as citizens.

Order of Business - 30th October 2008

Order of Business - 30th October 2008Senator David Norris: I listened with interest to the calls for a debate on the way people vote, cynicism and so on. It seems it was a clarion call for independence. We are the only ones in this House who have the luxury of being able to act as we speak in the voting lobby. I have seen every party in the Oireachtas behave in precisely the same way described by Senator Alex White. This is a feature of the way in which the party system works. Nobody is completely without guilt in this.We have received the Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Bill 2008. Will the Leader give me an idea when it will be taken? It is a very important, significant and hopeful Bill and these days we need a bit of hope and idealism. Ireland, the Seanad, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, all played a crucial role in getting international agreement. I am very proud it is called the Dublin Agreement. This is part of the realisation of this process. It would be very good if we had a debate on this, which is something of which we can be proud in these difficult times.I thought I was in danger of agreeing with my good friend, Senator Hanafin, but then I realised I can only technically agree with his call for a debate on privatisation and so on. Let us have such a debate. Privatisation, the market, competition and so on have got us into this problem. In the broadband debate, I did not hear one person refer to the fact that Tony O'Reilly gobbled up Eircom and asset stripped it.An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should not mention people outside the House.Senator David Norris: That company had the lowest investment in infrastructure, especially in broadband. Having flogged off Eircom, so to speak, we are going to do a little bit of short selling on the market, namely, selling and buying back again. Hedge funds; short selling - what a way to go.An Cathaoirleach: The Senator's point is well made.Senator David Norris: Aer Lingus was happily privatised and Shannon was shafted pretty nicely. Now the workers are going to come out because Aer Lingus wants to outsource.I call for a debate on all these issues, including Eircom, privatisation, the market and the Competition Authority which has been spoken about, has been absolutely useless, has only intervened against the citizens and neglected to notice-----An Cathaoirleach: The Senator's point is made.Senator David Norris: -----the deadline that let off one major multinational corporation. Let us have a debate on all these issues but let us be honest about and see what the record and the past has taught us in this area.

Motion on Special Educational Needs - 29th October 2008

Motion on Special Educational Needs - 29th October 2008
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State who is from my part of the world. I know him to be a decent and courageous man. I was in the church in Westland Row when he stood up. His name, John Moloney, did not mean anything but when people heard the words "Fianna Fáil", a palpable wave of anger travelled down the church. I have never experienced anything like it. The reason for that was not personal culpability but because the Government did not listen. Unfortunately, people will not now listen to it.
Nobody is denying we are in a very serious financial situation. That is a given. This side of the House was challenged by Senator Boyle who is an exceptionally decent man. He asked what changes we would make and what would we do. I would not have started with the sick, the disabled and the elderly. They should not be the first targets but the very last ones. This will have a real impact on the disabled, in particular.
I am an Independent Senator and vote on the merits of a case. The Labour Party motion was clear, precise and factual but the Government's amendment was the usual self-congratulatory waffle. If one was to accept the Minister of State's contribution together with the amendment, one would be persuaded that the Government was doing disabled people a favour and that they were better off. It is a kind of mad mathematical conjuring trick.
A piece of advice I would give is to take up Senator Joe O'Toole's offer. He made a fantastic and passionate contribution. He knew what he was talking about and I know the Minister of State discusses issues with him. He said he could produce budget neutral cuts which would have the same effect. The Minister of State should discuss this with him. If he wants to know what to do, that is one bloody good idea.
The number of people involved is enormous - some 393,785. It is almost 10% of the population. We have done a good job in improving their situation but it is awful to give people a gift and then snatch it away. The disappointment is reduplicated by that. I attended a briefing a fortnight ago by the Disability Federation of Ireland. It was already complaining and asked that the Minister give back the stolen €85 million, that is, the money diverted by the HSE. The Minister of State addressed part of this issue courageously.
A total of €10 million has been provided in additional funding but there is a 1% cut across the board. Again, it is a case of taking and giving at the same time. There is a 2.1% increase in the application. A sizable proportion of that should go towards stabilising the position for the disabled. We need to reinstate the diverted funds I mentioned and put in place proper mechanisms. I will mention a couple of figures to make it clear that what I raise is factual.
The Central Statistics Office states that the weekly allowance for disability for 2008 was €197.80. I will supply the Minister of State with the figures directly. There is no doubt there is a significant decrease. Taking into account all the creative mathematics there will be a loss of €13,000 to €14,000 over a two year period.
I want to put a human face on this. The chairman of the Donegal Down's Syndrome Association illustrated that as a result of the budget the qualifying age for disability allowance was being raised from 16 to 18, and he would loose €13,000 over two years. It is cynical to argue that it is to encourage them to go out and get a job. Some of these people are profoundly disabled. It is an appalling comment and should be withdrawn. Another man, whose daughter had Down's Syndrome, stated that when she passed away last year at the age of 26, he was refused a bereavement grant on the grounds that she had no record of employment, and therefore had no entitlements. If people are profoundly disabled and cannot take up employment, they will be punished twice.
We think these people can be exported out into a world where competition reigns, capitalism is supreme and nobody gives a tuppenny damn. Margaret Thatcher came right in the end. We have an economy and not a society.

Order of Business - 28th October 2008

Order of Business - 29th October 2008

Senator David Norris: I would welcome a debate on the decision made by University College Cork, which has behaved extremely responsibly. It did not pre-empt legislation in this area because such legislation does not exist, despite the efforts of my colleague, former Senator Mary Henry, who produced a Bill in this regard that was not adopted by the Government. University College Cork did not pre-empt anything and has not pre-empted a Supreme Court decision. Were a case to come before the Supreme Court, there is nothing to prevent it from making a decision. Faced with a vacuum in the law, University College Cork did the honest, decent and courageous thing by implementing a regime whereby the free range that existed previously now is properly addressed and tabulated. I have no problem with a debate although I will be on the other side to my good friend, Senator Mullen. However, I applaud University College Cork.
Senator Alex White referred to a serious economic commentator and there may be such - I do not know. However, the significant point is that no one, whether a serious economic commentator or otherwise, has managed to suggest a clear vision of the way out of this mess. That is significant. I agree with what I understand to have been Senator Harris's intention in stating the situation now is so dangerous that it is time to consider a national Government, using the talents of the various parties, in order that everyone will pull together if, as Ministers have asserted, the position is so serious.
Senator Terry Leyden: There is a surplus of talent.
Senator David Norris: In the absence of such leadership or analysis of the financial situation, one is left dealing with the queries of individual people. I conducted a radio interview the other day with an economic commentator and while I do not know how serious he was, he came up with a serious question. If a deposit taker, that is, the bank that has accepted the money, goes into liquidation, how long will it take to recover individuals' funds and what level of administration will be involved? He provided the specific example of one of his clients who is considering the building of a new family home in 2009. Were such a person to put €100,000 into one of the wobbly banks, as it were, will he be able to get it back out? What delays will there be? These are real and immediate problems. I second Senator Mullen's amendment and apologise for not so doing earlier.
I seek a debate on the Middle East. I have asked for such a debate a number of times. Two days ago, the Americans invaded Syria. They crossed the border with a fleet of helicopters, landed in broad daylight and machine-gunned a family home, resulting in more than half a dozen deaths, a number of which were of children. This took place without discussion. How long will Bush be allowed to commit murder in such a way? The voice of protest must be raised because that man is in the final, dying days of his disgraceful presidency and I hope he does not do something catastrophic as a diversionary tactic.

Statements on Health Promotion Priorities - 23rd October 2008

Statements on Health Promotion Priorities - 23rd October 2008
Senator David Norris: I welcome this debate and I welcome the Minister of State to the
House. I must say, as a random observation, it is interesting that the Minister of State and the
overwhelming number of speakers in the debate were women. Women have demonstrated that
they are the people who care about the basic issues.
The basic issues are clear, and they have been dealt with fairly extensively. They are smoking
and drinking alcohol. There is no question or doubt about that. There is a huge distortion in
terms of the alcohol figures, and I believe the Minister of State put those on the record. We
are 50% above the European norm. This is described as our culture. I find that insulting. It is
not our culture the way people drink alcohol in this country, the way they damage themselves
and the way they behave in public. This is an increasing phenomenon.
In view of the short time available I direct the Minister of State to the debate held in this
House on the alcohol Bill during which many strong points were made. Some were taken up
by the Government but it did not go as far as suggested from this side of the House particularly
in terms of the control of advertising, among other things.
Politicians are too close to the drinks industry in this country in the same way as we have
discovered they were too close to the construction industry. That relationship must be broken.
Traditionally, politicians held their clinics in pubs and so on, and we have a representative of
the Licensed Vintners Association in the Seanad. They have a very strong lobby and they do
not always tell the truth. They do target young people. Sports sponsorship is an obscenity and
a contradiction. Alcohol is something that has clearly damaged the health of the country yet
we allow it to get in and target young people.
The same applies to smoking. I am very glad this country showed a lead in banning cigarette
smoking because this is the second major element in terms of what we need for a health
promotion strategy. Traditionally, the tobacco companies have been corrupt. They falsified
evidence. They deliberately included additional chemical elements that had an addictive effect.
They denied research. They lied in court in America, and they are now targeting the most
vulnerable countries in the developed world to off-load their cigarettes.
We need to be aware that the drinks and the tobacco industries are two powerful groups
who have no scruples. That is a change. In the old days in Ireland there was Uncle Arthur,
John Jameson and the old Midleton distillery but that is gone. Nowadays the players are the
big multinational corporations. They do not make their decisions here. They make their
decisions looking at a graph in London or New York and it is a question of profit. It is not a
question of the social damage that is being done. The mass of ridiculous groups that are established
are nothing but a camouflage.
We need to get into the schools early and make sure that drinking is not seen as something
heroic. I hear commentators on the radio and people on chat shows promote it subliminally.
They refer to being plastered, having a hangover or that they had a few bevies. That is the way
it is insidiously eating into what we see as our culture.
There is also the question of accident and emergency services. Part of the promotion of
health should be to penalise people. We only have to look at the distortion in the way accident
and emergency situations are dealt with because of the influx of people under the influence of
drink and drugs at the weekends. We should look, too, at the collateral nuisance caused, the
803
Health Promotion Priorities: 23 October 2008. Statements
[Senator David Norris.]
proliferation of off-licences and the way in which licences are being given out throughout
the city.
I am on the Dublin central policing committee. I raised this issue and a report was commissioned.
When it came back it was all done in terms of competition policy. There was no
element of health or the social good involved. I insisted that the report be withdrawn and
rewritten, as it was, but that was the priority. Competition is a little god. It appears to be more
important than people’s health and welfare. We can give disincentives to people by making it
unattractive to smoke or drink alcohol, and the Government could do a good job on that.
I want to raise another element — spitting in the street. That went out when I was a child
because every bus had advertisements saying “Don’t spit in public”. One could be fined for
doing it. It was a serious offence but now the pavements are a mess with spit. We need to
promote awareness in this area. It is partly our own fault and it is partly due to people who
have come from other cultures where spitting is part of the daily routine but it is a dangerous
way of spreading disease. To return to the question of alcohol, in the inner city where I live
people use the pavements as public lavatories.
A number of other issues arise such as AIDS. When was the last time we had an AIDS
prevention programme directed at young people? I can tell the Minister of State that in terms
of sexual hygiene that message has got lost. AIDS is no longer seen as a death sentence. It is
seen as something one can live with. It is not treated as seriously as it should be. We need a
programme in place.
The issues of bullying and suicide were raised, and the figures outlined regarding young
males in particular. Under that there is also a concealed figure for those people who are gay,
and that must be tackled head on. A total of 80% of the bullying in schools has a homophobic
element but in 80% of cases nothing is done because, among other things, the teachers are
afraid. That is why it is wonderful that we have schools like Educate Together.
I was invited to Griffith Barracks Educate Together national school. When I was half way
there I phoned my secretary to ask if it was a secondary school. She said it was a primary
school. I was there to talk about the gay issue as a human rights issue. I was concerned but it
was marvellous because of the context in which they put it. If that had been there when I was
a child it would have been so positive and hopeful. Under the suicide figures there are many
young men who are depressed and confused about their sexual identity.
With regard to the suicide figures, we used to regard ourselves as the best of the lot and
compared ourselves favourably with Scandinavian countries in that they were either godless or
Protestants. We were a good Catholic country. Suicide did not exist. Now we have information
on the rates but it reveals only part of the picture. In the United Kingdom, for example, the
authorities factor in undetermined deaths when computing the annual figures. We do not do
that, even though a significant proportion of undetermined deaths are actually by suicide. I ask
the Minister of State to give consideration to this matter.
I compliment the Minister of State upon her interest in this area. There is no doubt that
further health promotion initiatives are required. Nutrition should be part of the school curriculum.
People become fat because they eat too much junk food.
Acting Chairman (Senator Ann Ormonde): The Senator should conclude.
Senator David Norris: This is one of the practical matters which should be dealt with in the
context of the educational curriculum.
804
Health Promotion Priorities: 23 October 2008. Statements
Senator Liam Twomey: I am sorry Senator Norris was cut short because he was making a
fine contribution to the debate. It is a pity a fe

Order of Business - 23rd October 2008

Order of Business - 23rd October 2008
Senator David Norris: I take it Senator Ann Ormonde is seconding Senator Joe O’Toole’s
amendment to the Order of Business. If not, I am happy to formally do so.
Senator Terry Leyden: The Minister for Education and Science is in China and, therefore,
cannot come to the House for a debate.
An Cathaoirleach: Please, Senator Leyden.
Senator David Norris: For the past several weeks I have attempted to highlight the manner
in which the Government is using the budget to dismantle all those organisations which speak
for the vulnerable and the oppressed, such as Combat Poverty, human rights agencies and the
Equality Authority. That is the real danger. The Government has failed to listen to the people.
Now the people will not listen to the Government. It has already managed to reverse some
aspects of the budget and has, therefore, created a precedent. There are masses of other groups
queueing up. It was not just the over 70s who protested outside the gates yesterday; the students also did so.
Yesterday, Senator Joe O’Toole outlined the position in regard to education. I received a
waft of e-mails from people today about the impact of these budget cuts on their schools.
Senator Terry Leyden said these people are the salt of the earth. Yes, they are but too much
salt is bad for the cardiovascular system. If this country breaks down because of a lack of
authoritative government giving into sectorial interests, however valuable they are, and if no
one is prepared to take the pain which we must all take, the system will grind to a halt.
Yesterday’s scheduled meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs was
cancelled. The Office of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal informed the clerk to the committee
that the tribunal’s chairman — I will not put his name on the record — would be unavailable
for the next meeting scheduled for next Wednesday. The clerk was also informed that the
chairman was not agreeable to nominating a senior official from his office to attend in his place.
When will the immigration Bill be introduced to the House? I went to a briefing on this Bill
which is extraordinarily defective and violates the Constitution. Once more, it will penalise the
most vulnerable in society. The gentleman who refused to turn up at the foreign affairs commit-
tee meeting was involved in proceedings, partly initiated by a former Member of this House,
Michael O’Kennedy, in which it was clear he had given false evidence to a very high court in
this land. If this had been allowed to proceed to judgment, he would have been found in
contempt. That person has been proposed to continue as chairman of the new tribunal. There
is a stink about this which will escape from the corridors of Leinster House. No one will be able
to contain the scandal involved in this, yet this man refuses to attend an Oireachtas committee.
When will the immigration Bill be introduced? Is the Government going to stick to the Bill’s
proposals or will it subject it to scrutiny in order to amend it? Will the Government give us an
assurance that the bad policies, represented by this person who refuses to obey the wish of the
Oireachtas, are not continued?

Order of Business - 22nd October 2008

Order of Business - 22nd October 2008
Senator David Norris: I agree with every single word uttered by Senator Mary White. I was
present at the church. It was an astonishing spectacle. I have never experienced anything like
it. It was the risen people.
It is extraordinary that Fianna Fa´ il, which was always the party par excellence in terms of
being in touch with the grass roots, seems to have lost its antenna. It did not listen to the
people on this issue and now the people will not listen to it. When the Minister of State, Deputy
John Moloney, went to the microphone a palpable wave of anger travelled down the body of
the church and walloped off him, as it were. His face went parchment white. The microphone
was taken from him and he was told, “Shame on you; shame on you.” It was an extraordinary
spectacle and very dangerous.
As we head into an economic storm, the one thing we need is a sure hand on the tiller and
firm Government that has moral authority and the support of all the people, including the
different parties. By political cack-handedness, regrettably, the Government has lost it. Its
targets were wrong. It is not that the Government does not have an ideology. It is that too much
ideology has leaked in from the Progressive Democrats. Competition is all we heard about.
We hear, for example, Members on the Government side of the House raise the issue of
universality. They are against it but are for it when their Government puts a 1% tax on everyone,
which is the most shameful measure I have ever come across in my life. I will say what
they are doing because I have tried to say it and I was stopped.
An Cathaoirleach: Questions to the Leader, please.
Senator David Norris: When will the Minister come to the House to address with Members
matters such as the scrapping of the Combat Poverty Agency when poverty is being created
all around us? The Government has halved the budget for the Equality Tribunal and is proceeding
with its decentralisation to Portarlington. This is all in advance of a report it has commissioned
about efficiency and value for money. Before it gets the report, it will implement its
decisions regarding the Competition Authority, the Equality Authority, the Combat Poverty
Agency and the Data Protection Commissioner.
What has the Government not hit? We have heard from Senator O’Toole that prosecutions
of criminals may not be able to proceed efficiently. What is the Government doing to the
Competition Authority that stuck its nose into certain negotiations? When that authority was
set up, the Government did not even provide for competition for its own executives until the
Seanad inserted that for it.
An Cathaoirleach: The point is made.
Senator David Norris: The authority failed in its duty because it neglected a deadline by
which it could deal properly with a major multinational but it was able to crucify the members
of Irish Equity on the sum of \7,500 when it would not allow the organisation to engage in
collective bargaining. It was deemed a cartel——
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has made his point.
Senator David Norris: ——and that is a disgrace. On universality, we on this side of the
House were asked whether we had ever seen millionaires in accident and emergency departments,
etc. I can tell this House honestly that I have seen the equivalent, as have we all. I have
seen very wealthy people taking every handout, grant and free gift from the taxpayer and using
them as pocket money.
An Cathaoirleach: The point is made.
Senator David Norris: That is why I am in favour of means tests, but if the Government has
means tests to exclude the rich, it must have proper and decent ones to save the poor who are
being betrayed by the Government.

Motion on the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008 - 17th October 2008

Motion on the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008 - 17th October 2008
Senator David Norris: Like Senator Donohoe, I listened with great interest to what my
colleagues said and in particular I was entertained when Senator Ross, who is a noted gadfly
in this House, suggested that the recommendations from the Government side, that somebody
should be placed on the board as a Government nominee, referred to me. It would be far more
appropriate if it were Senator Ross, who has served on a large number of financial institutions
and funds of various kinds. He has the experience and one hopes that he has guarded their
moneys extremely well. Since he is the father of the House and has been here about three
times as long as anybody else, I was a little surprised that he did not know that we do not refer
to the fact that people are not physically in the Chamber in his pointed remark about my
absence. I was doing my work in my office and I heard every word he said, much of which
made sense.
There is no doubt that this is an international problem. In an article about America by Lee
Iacocca, the man who saved half the American motor car manufacturing business, he stated:
We’ve got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we’ve got
corporate gangsters stealing us blind and we can’t even clean up after a hurricane ... The
most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we’re
fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do.
That is the problem. There is no leadership, certainly no moral leadership. There was not any
leadership here either because we did not take on the Americans. We were afraid of the impact.
Nobody in the financial world and nobody with a foot in both camps was prepared to stand
out against the appalling moral collapse in values in the United States when it embarked on
kidnap, torture, the blitzkrieg of Iraq and all the rest of it. The bill for that is precisely the size
of the hole in the banks, and that is a point well worth making.
There is no question of business ethics. All this talk about patriotism is nonsense. Banks and
stock exchanges do not operate on the basis of ethics, rather on the grounds of profit. They do
not even observe their own rules. I was a director of several companies. I did not get paid but
the institutions were established as companies. On two occasions I stopped the operations of
those companies for fear of reckless trading. Did the directors of these banks ever hear of the
phrase “reckless trading”? Why are they not prosecuted? They obviously traded recklessly with
their depositors’ and investors’ money and the future of this country. It is shameful that they
are being allowed to continue in their positions. Sea´n O´ Faola´ in, writing in the aftermath of
the Civil War, said that when the dust had settled, nothing had changed and the old arses were
back in the saddles. Nothing had changed, and that is exactly what has happened here. They
are still there even though they traded recklessly which is, in fact, a criminal offence.
This affects not just Ireland, of course, but the whole financial world. We hear people such
as the head of the IMF talking about a global financial meltdown. This is apocalyptic language
and the situation is very serious. Bank shares are tumbling all the time. How many more
mornings we can listen to announcements about 9% off one bank and 9% off another? They
are going to be left with virtually nothing. These were the people who made obscene profits
and now they are repossessing people’s homes. I hope the Minister of State will bear in mind
what I said the other day, namely, that people who are being squeezed for their mortgages
should be looked after. If we are rescuing the banks, the small people also should be rescued.
With regard to the objectives of the Bill, there has been some talk about liquidity, capitalisation
and all this type of stuff. This is supposed to create confidence. It is supposed to be a
guarantee. I am not a financial wizard and I know it depends on confidence but sometimes
confidence can turn into a confidence trick. The exposure of the banks is rumoured to be \485
billion. The real gross national product of this country in the last figures issued by the Department
of Finance was \158.86 billion. In other words we have issued a cheque for three times
our GNP, and it could well bounce if called into play. That is the type of guarantee that cannot
be sustained.
The Minister of State is laughing and I am glad he has something to laugh about. Perhaps it
is delusional. One never quite knows because it is certain Ministers and the heads of financial
institutions have been delusional before and we do not know the precise exposure of the banks.
When I read the Bill last night, I thought that as I do not have the financial expertise of some
of my colleagues, perhaps I was missing something. I could find very little in the way of specific
detail. We were told, when we were looking at this situation earlier at the time of the crisis a
week ago when Members were in the House overnight, that this was a facilitating Bill and the
detail would come in this motion, but it has not. The explanatory memorandum is full of those
exhortatory phrases such as “to the extent possible” and so on, but it does not give any specifics
as far as I can see. One senior banker is quoted today in the newspapers as saying it is like
going into a restaurant without knowing the prices.
With regard to the mechanism for rescuing the banks, the seven criteria listed in the Bill are
very interesting. The Minister of State knows them, so I do not have to read them out. They
include long-term credit rating, ability to reduce risk and to self-finance charges, etc. However,
the weaker the banks, the higher the charges will be. That is rather strange. Joining this scheme
is optional. If any of our big banks were properly capitalised and not in any danger, why would
they join this scheme to bail out institutions that had been stupider and more profligate than
they were? It will be interesting to see whether banks join the scheme because I can see
disincentives in it.
One way or another, there is no doubt capitalism is in trouble. The Minister of State smiled
there a while ago. I smile somewhat at the situation I mentioned and believe it should be
questioned. However, I do not smile for the unfortunate citizens of this country who have been
caught in this situation and for the weakest and most vulnerable who are the target of this
Government. That may be seen very clearly not just in the removal of the medical card for the
over 70s but in a most sinister fashion in the attempt to collapse into one controllable unit the
five principal agencies that look after the weakest. Just today the Departments of Finance and
Justice, Equality and Law reform have refused freedom of information requests about the
exchanges between their two Departments on this issue.

Order of Business - 16th October 2008

Order of Business - 16th October 2008
Senator David Norris: There is considerable confusion about this medical card business which
has to be cleared up as it could become the equivalent of the tax on shoes which brought down
a previous Government. The Government seduced old people into leaving the VHI and then
left them hanging. We have to scotch the nonsense from Senators on the Government side that
nothing has changed and pensioners will be able to rejoin health insurance schemes on the
same terms they enjoyed previously. Insurance companies have to make profits on their clients
and may offer such disadvantageous terms such that rejoining is of no use to the applicant.
There is, therefore, a cost.
As to the argument that the \80 million will be paid by doctors, while general practitioners
may not receive a cheque from the Government, they will, as sure as hell, extract it from their
sick and elderly patients. The one constant in this business is that the pensioners will still pay.
While I have no problem with means testing, it has to be done properly and one has to hit
those who can pay. It must also be a two way system in that one should means test people not
only to exclude them from a system but also to ensure people are included in a scheme. This
is not currently the case with the result that we are not protecting the weak.
The former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, used to say he was a socialist. I know the
socialist credo — from each according to his means and to each according to his need.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should address questions to the Leader.
Senator David Norris: We are taking from people and failing to give to those who are needy.
The same applies in the case of university fees. It is a nonsense to suggest we have free fees.
It was another vote getting exercise. While the question of whether fees should be reintroduced
should be examined, we are taxing people by doubling the capitation fee to \1,500 for all
students. This approach targets everyone. If one were to introduce fees with a proper ceiling,
one would target the people who are in need. This is exactly the same as in the case of
means testing.
I was amazed to hear Senator Regan, a distinguished lawyer, suggest that we flout a treaty.
He also said our democratic vote had alienated large numbers of people in the rest of Europe.
On the contrary, it alienated a large number of senior politicians, whereas the people of Europe
were pleased with what we did and they were right to be so.

Statements on the Budget - 15th October 2008

Statements on the Budget - 15th October 2008
Senator David Norris: I welcome the debate. Like most other Senators, I received approximately
20 submissions from Age Action Ireland, Action on Suicide, Chambers Ireland, the
Carers Association and the Disability Federation of Ireland, which attended the Mansion
House to point out that \83 million had disappeared while being redirected through the HSE.
Several of the federation’s members asked to have their stolen money returned to them. These
are the types of issue we must address.
Do´ chas, which represents 40 organisations, is reasonably satisfied that the 0.7% target for
overseas development aid is still on track. I received a submission from the Irish Cancer Society
— it is regrettable that only 50 cent has been added to each packet of cigarettes, since it could
have been \2—and Inclusion Ireland. As children with disabilities have a statutory entitlement
to assessments by therapists and so on, therapists have been drawn away. As a consequence of
these staffing restrictions, there is a serious lack of professionals to provide ongoing therapy.
Each area has its own difficulties.
I also received submissions from the National Council for the Blind of Ireland, the Irish Deaf
Society, Focus Ireland, the IFA, the National Youth Council of Ireland, One Family, OPEN,
Schizophrenia Ireland, the Irish Senior Citizens’ Parliament, the Simon Community and the
Society of St. Vincent de Paul. I am not an economist but I know one simple thing, that money
is the symbolic representation of energy. In the old days one received a sack of corn if one
worked for a farmer. One was then given a gold ducat, a ten bob note, a promissory note, then
something else. The problem internationally is that the symbol has become detached from
reality. We are now into international casino financing and I am disturbed that the Minister’s
colleague is considering licensing casinos and, in particular, making accessible to Irish gamblers
the kind of terminals described throughout Europe as the crack cocaine of gambling.
I appeal to the Minister of State in respect of the 1% levy. It is a disgrace. Those of us here
can afford it. I do not mind paying 2% but surely people earning under \35,000 should pay
nothing at all. These people are already on the edge. Those earning between \35,000-50,000
should pay 0.5%. I have written to the Minister for Finance appealing to him and I will table
a recommendation at the appropriate time. It is important to examine this and it would be very
popular if the Minister agreed to it. I imagine the amount of money gained is quite small.
Let us consider the situation of the poor. Liquid fuels have risen by 47% in the past 12
months, other fuels by 39%, gas by 17-19% and the ESB seeks a 17% increase. In respect of
food, in the 12 months to May the price of flour has risen 39%, bread by 17%, milk by 30%,
butter by 17% and tea by 11%. That shows how near the margins are these people. I can
suggest one practical measure from one of the briefings I was at, given by the Society of St.
Vincent de Paul. It suggests front-loading the fuel allowance, especially for those using oil, who
tend to be people in the country. I welcome the increase to \20 but oil companies will not
deliver on the basis of that sum. If it is paid in two equal parts of \510 in October and then
January it will cost the Exchequer nothing but will help the people involved.
The medical card situation regarding those over the age of 75 is a mess and should never
have been implemented. I approve of means testing but, on the other hand, people have been
seduced out of the VHI and are now dumped. They may not get cover again.
The merging of the rights agencies is a mean one because there are no savings. We know
that the Combat Poverty Agency will be absorbed into the Office of Social Inclusion and will
lose its independence and its capacity for independent research. There is no saving in this
move. This month, a motion was passed in the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs
asking that this would not be done. The Minister knows the text of this.
520
Budget Statement 2009: 15 October 2008. Statements
I refer to the Equality Authority and the Data Protection Commissioner, who are being
decentralised. There is no saving. This is being done to deprive the poorest of the only voice
they had and that is shameful. The Minister should examine this again.
Senator Shane Ross: Many of us on these benches, one of whom is Senator Norris, would

Order of Business - 15th October 2008

Order of Business - 15th October 2008
Senator David Norris: I join with colleagues in welcoming the debate on the budget. One of the most critical issues is the one which Senators O'Toole and Alex White raised. I am perfectly happy to pay the 1% levy and, if my income goes over €100,000 to pay 2%. It is totally appropriate and I have no quarrel with it but Senator White is 100% right in saying that this is a vicious tax. There must be a lower limit. I applaud the higher limit but how can we expect people under €35,000 to pay 1%? This is cutting into what they pay on food, heating and education of their children. This House should urge a lower limit beneath which people pay nothing at all. If necessary, the tax should be raised for the rest of us. We can afford it, they cannot.
Senator Joe O'Reilly: Hear, hear.
Senator David Norris: I am glad to have received information from Dóchas that the 0.7% target in overseas development aid will be reached during the specified time. That is good but the problem is that this is dislodging attention from other issues. We are properly concerned with the international financial situation and its repercussions in Ireland but there are other matters around the world. I would like a debate on the situation in Zimbabwe. It is quite extraordinary but, alas, predictable that Robert Mugabe is doing what some of us felt he might. He is outflanking Morgan Tsvangirai by grabbing the three most significant ministries - defence, security and finance - and then offering to dump finance onto Morgan Tsvangirai in a trade-off. This is very serious and if we believe in democracy, we need to examine this situation.

Statements on Volunteering in Irish Society - 14th October 2008

Statements on Volunteering in Irish society - 14th October 2008
Senator David Norris: I also welcome the Minister of State and compliment him on his speech in which he hit a number of the right notes and which I would like to develop. Although it is part of the Christian tradition to help out one's neighbours, it is not exclusively so. We are far too self-congratulatory and insular if we think we are so wonderful as a Christian country. I have worked with a number of voluntary organisations, Irish and other, here and abroad. Including in a number of the organisations that are specifically Christian, many of their excellent volunteers were devout atheists. However, it did not impact on their capacity to contribute. It is a human trait and not simply a sectional Christian one, although as a Christian, I like to think it is part of our obligation to live out the gospel in this way.
Like many other Senators I have had experience in the voluntary area. Very often it was simply because the authorities were not doing anything at all. Particularly in the area of gay rights, I was involved in the gay rights movement, the National Lesbian and Gay Federation of Ireland and the Hirschfeld Centre. My experience there makes me understand that it is very important for the Government to recognise the value of voluntary input, but not to use it as an excuse to do nothing. We often used to get complimented on what we did with regard to AIDS. The Government simply relaxed with the attitude that we were looking after it ourselves. We did not get a single ha'penny in support and yet we reversed the usual profile of the AIDS infection in this country, which was quite different from what happened in other countries. Wonderful people contributed voluntarily.
All our colleagues here will remember Tom Hyland, an unemployed bus driver from Ballyfermot, who took up the cause of East Timor. He organised ETISC, the East Timor Ireland Solidarity Campaign, from his little corporation house in Ballyfermot. He affected Irish and European policy. He was able to see half the world as his neighbours. I will never forget the day I heard Professor Peter Carey of Oxford saying in his cut-glass tones: "Of course when one considers the downfall of Suharto in Indonesia, one must acknowledge the role played by Tom Hyland of Ballyfermot in Dublin". That is a real David and Goliath story that gives the answer to anybody who says, "Oh, the situation is dreadful, but I can't do anything about it". Of course one can.
I would like to pay tribute to Volunteering Ireland, which is a remarkable organisation, and Voluntary Service Overseas. I must declare an interest as I have recently been appointed to the board of that body. It is a very fine body as is Volunteering Ireland. At least two Members of this House have recently returned, one from Africa and the other from Mongolia -Senator Mark Daly of Fianna Fáil and Senator Dominic Hannigan of the Labour Party. These young people have gone abroad to experience at first hand what it means for Irish volunteers to be able to contribute to and learn from the societies in which they find themselves.
In an age when were told we were not living in a society anymore - society had been abolished and it was just an economy - it is very important to realise there is such a thing as social capital and we need to build it up through the voluntary sector through mutual aid, self-help and people with shared problems. A problem shared is a problem halved by people working together to address these difficulties. Philanthropy is the service to others. In the brief I got from Volunteering Ireland I came across a new word, "philantherapy", which I love. There is a therapeutic quotient to getting involved. I have felt it myself, that when one puts something in one gets it back. Since I have suggested it is not just Christians, I should return to my roots and quote the bible "cast your bread upon the waters and it shall return to you an hundredfold". In other words one gets a return, a quantifiable bounce in one's self-esteem, one's feeling of well being and one's feeling of connection to one's community.
The Minister of State and some of my colleagues mentioned the Irish tradition. We are living in the protection of each other's shadow. Senator Ó Murchú quoted that wonderful Irish proverb. He referred to the meitheal and the community gathering around.


I live in the north inner city and I have witnessed that. It has not faded even with the arrival of new communities. Such participation is important and it helps with many emerging problems such as the integration of new communities into our society because these people are often locked into their own ghettos and one way to integrate them into our society is to encourage them to become involved in voluntarism.
Volunteers learn many skills, including advocacy and campaigning, which benefit not only the community but the individuals themselves. I like to pin down the value of voluntarism in economic and social terms. A report on volunteering in Ireland published in 2006 highlighted that 37.1% or 1,570,408 people volunteer for 465,624 hours per year, which is the equivalent of 96,454 full-time workers. I like grand, global figures and, therefore, 1.5 million people volunteer for 500,000 hours, which is the equivalent of 100,000 full-time workers. The financial benefit equates to between €200 million and €600 million. Senator Ó Murchú mentioned an Iar-Taoiseach, Parthalán Ó hEachthairn, who pointed out we would be hard put to afford all the work done by volunteers and, therefore, we should be sensitive when dealing with groups such as the Carers Association. The investment is well worth it. Senator Ó Murchú mentioned the meals on wheels scheme. How many people would be swept over if that did not exist?
This concept has been adopted in a tiny community in the Troodos Mountains in Cyprus. Many members of the community are elderly and they have a community centre. A meal is given to them four days a week and this also provides them with a social outlet.
For every €1.50 invested, a return of between €4.50 and €12 is achieved, which makes economic sense. A total of 72% of people feel volunteers offer something. For example, in the Dublin area alone, 52,000 adults are involved in the organisation of underage football. The GAA is hugely resourced but I do not object to that because it is a voluntary organisation at its core. Mr. Robert Putnam, an American sociologist wrote an interesting book entitled Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. He demonstrated that, as a result of the decline in social capital, people are less trusting and less connected with each other, leading to a lack of interest and trust in politics. It is, therefore, in our interest as well. People do not vote because they feel powerless, disenfranchised and cut off and this leads to a lack of civic involvement. They can be empowered through volunteering and by supporting voluntary organisations. However, such support must be clear. It is well worth doing so in the context of the benefits to society.
I commend the Minister of State on mentioning the White Paper published in 2000. I would like the Government to revisit it and audit the recommendations to ascertain how much has been done by Government; to ensure the voluntary sector is recognised and the support provided to the sector is examined; to ensure joined up thinking and initiatives will create the conditions for civic participation; to mainstream volunteering in Government policy; and to support all volunteering initiatives and consult widely with key stakeholders in the area.
I refer to the my own experience with the Hirschfeld Centre, the Joyce Centre and the North Great Georges Street Preservation Society. The voluntary sector must not be left on its own. Constructive interaction is needed because it is easy for us in public life to be lazy and when something wonderful is done by organisations such as Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, which also gets a fair wallop of cash, we need to make sure we do not relax and say everything is all right and such organisations are looking after it. We must support them, particularly in the current economic climate.

Order of Business - 14th October 2008

Order of Business - 14th October 2008
Senator David Norris: I wish the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, well on this critical day in his career and in the life of the country. This is not a time for smart-ass, partisan politicking. The circumstances are far too serious. We have had the largest stock-market crash since 1929 and we are probably heading into a slump. This has been triggered by the criminal greed and irresponsibility of the Bush-Cheney Administration. It is significant that the $700 billion that will be necessary to plug the hole in the banks is precisely the amount the Iraq war adventure has cost. We should take note of the fact that the so-called war on terror was used to mask a massive attack on civil liberties and human rights. I hope this economic crisis will not be used in a similar manner to mask an attack on the most vulnerable sections of our society. These are the people who need to be protected most.
I wish to flag concern - it is appropriate that it would come from this House - at reports from yesterday's newspapers that in the justice area a series of agencies are to be merged, including the National Disability Authority, which is in the middle of preparing the national disability strategy. This is not the time to be fiddling with it. Also included are the Equality Tribunal and the Equality Authority. In the past the Government has overridden that authority's recommendations and so it must not be further weakened. Also included is the Irish Human Rights Commission, which was established statutorily. It is required to be an exact parallel to that existing north of the Border. This should not be tampered with. It is also proposed to assume the Combat Poverty Agency into the Department of Social and Family Affairs' office for social inclusion. This will simply make it an arm of Government and will prevent it from independent research and reporting and being positively critical of Government policy.
We in this House must play a role in safeguarding the rights and welfare of the most vulnerable people in our society. In the past year I have regularly raised the issue of the increase in the number of home repossessions of people getting into difficulty. This increase is gathering speed. The courts had a series of repossession orders on which the judges have commented. It is significant that now every institution, including all the financial institutions that are being baled out, is applying for repossession. This is not tolerable. I agree with Senator Obama in the United States who called for a moratorium on repossessions for three months, which we also need in this country. I am calling today for precisely that kind of moratorium.
We are in the middle of a global situation. However, we have played our own role through incompetence and lack of supervision. I heard this morning that in the health service, for every front-line person engaged, there have been two managers. That is madness. We played our own provincial role in this economic tragedy and it seems as if the Executive's snout was rarely raised from a trough that was regularly replenished with luxurious swill at the expense of the taxpayer. That must also stop. We all need to buckle down in this critical situation. The most important thing we can do is to support any reasonable Government policy in this difficult time, but in so doing we must ensure nothing is contained therein that constitutes an attack on the most vulnerable, marginalised and poor.

Order of Business - 9th October 2008

Order of Business - 9th October 2008

Senator David Norris: I join with colleagues in welcoming the possibility of a debate on the banks. What we are essentially seeing is the nationalisation of the banking system, and I strongly welcome this. There will be a requirement for a further inflow of public funds, and so the taxpayer should be entitled to equity for that investment. I heard somebody on the radio yesterday saying that we needed a return to the values of public service, and I agree completely. Where did they go? Many of us have been calling for that for a long time. This is a public utility and should be treated as such. We all use the banking system and we cannot live our lives without it. It must be protected by the State and I do not mind the word "nationalisation". In fact, I welcome it.
I thank my colleague, Senator Hannigan, for his generous remarks about Trinity College, while his own university is also in the first 200 colleges. Trinity College has managed to get into the first 50 colleges. These are very significant achievements for both universities, especially if one looks at the top 20. They are almost all from America, although there are a few British universities. The difference is the massive funding that both states put into third level education. I have a slight difference with my colleague, Senator Bacik, as I believe the question of fees is still open. I know this could damage my constituency and that I could lose votes, but I do not care. One must look at these matters in a detached light and I believe that the scarce resources of the State are directed in the most meaningful way towards the most vulnerable people. I am not going to stand against fees until that question has been examined, because we must, as a matter of principle, protect the most vulnerable.
My final point is on the proposed metro. I welcome very much the fact that this continues to be discussed on the transport committee, and I ask the Leader for a full debate on this matter. It started in the House as the framework legislation was passed in here following a vote. It is important to note that the Chairman of the transport committee, Deputy Fahey, said yesterday that it was vitally important that the metro project continue. He was supported by the Fine Gael representative, Deputy Fergus O'Dowd, who said that it was an essential piece of infrastructure. Nonetheless, The Irish Times, under the leadership of its former environment correspondent Frank McDonald, has been engaging continuously over the last ten years in an almost ideologically committed campaign against the metro. This is similar to the campaign the Sunday Independent waged against Mary Robinson when she was President, when we would see her in the fashion pages. One would expect to find her in the weather column, because every possible device was used to be critical of her.
An Cathaoirleach: Questions to the Leader, please.
Senator David Norris: It is the same in The Irish Times regarding the metro. This project was delayed 20 years ago, even though it was known to be the best solution, because we hit a rock in finance terms. We cannot afford to do it again, and we need to discuss it openly in the House.

Housing Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2008 - 2nd Stage Debate - 8th October 2008

Housing Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2008 - 2nd Stage Debate - 8th October 2008
Senator David Norris: I wish to make a few comments on this important Bill. First, I welcome the Minister back to this House, with which he was so familiar in the past and to which he paid great tribute in his speech. The first note he struck did not surprise me, given my knowledge of his character. He spoke about the human dimension of the housing situation and the financial downturn we are facing.
I will reiterate something I had been saying for a considerable number of months before this recession, which is very worrying, had its major impact. It relates to repossessions. I accept this is not directly addressed in the Bill, nor would it be appropriate for it to do so. However, if there is a steep increase in repossessions, we may find that people who are the victims in that situation will apply for the type of housing envisaged in this scheme. It is important that the Minister use his influence with his colleagues to ensure a return for the support being given to the banks by the taxpayer. The sudden recent steep increase in repossession orders, about which I have spoken over the last six months and which was noted a couple of days ago by a senior judge in court, should be drawn to the attention of the banks and it should be indicated to them that this is not a positive way for them to behave in the current economic climate.
Housing is a sensitive area and is a human need. It is important that it is addressed. The Minister referred to an investment of €2.5 billion in social and affordable housing in 2008 to meet the needs of 20,000 households. Presumably, a significant proportion of that budget has already been spent, given that this is the end of 2008. How much of it has been spent? If the remaining figure is substantial, to what extent is it protected?
There are budget cuts. Earlier, I attended a pre-budget briefing by the Carers Association. I spoke to a couple of elderly people who were concerned about matters that are relevant to this legislation. They were concerned about the possibility of the removal by local authorities of special grants for people over 70 years of age to carry out maintenance and certain running repairs on their housing. One woman mentioned the problem of broken windows. It might appear to be a small matter and not a huge economic drain, but for people who have tight budgetary margins it can be significant because they might not be able to afford to carry out those repairs. That creates a knock-on cost for the Exchequer. What will these people do about heat? If they have broken windows, the heat will escape so they will either turn up the heat and get into debt or live with the problem and end up in hospital. It would be prudent to examine these issues carefully. I hope these people will be safe.
There are some new developments with regard to assessing housing needs and matching individual needs to the housing stock available. Like many of my colleagues, I receive a number of pleas from citizens throughout the country who have problems getting the type of housing they need. Assessing the need is very important. The Minister spoke about strengthening local democracy by reinforcing the role of elected members. If possible, I hope he will elaborate on that.

I would be interested to see this spelt out a little more, if possible. It could be positive but it also could be negative in that one does not want too much clientelism or people getting a house simply at the nod of a local representative. However, it is useful for a local representative to be able to bring specific needs forcibly to the attention of local authorities. I have never been a member of a local authority but have written to many around the country because really critical human circumstances, which apparently have been ignored, have been brought to my attention. It is noticeable that a letter on Oireachtas notepaper sometimes helps to ease circumstances.
Let me refer to certain circumstances I have encountered. I am not sure they are directly relevant to this Bill, except in terms of the psychology of officialdom. I have just been dealing with a case that has been resolved concerning a person who has been in the country for quite a number of years, contributed to the economy through work and applied for citizenship. The person was a victim of persecution and, tragically, has now acquired immune deficiency syndrome. The person has a wealth of letters from medical personnel and social workers stating a particular kind of accommodation is absolutely vital. One of the letters in the person's file was from a housing official who stated the authorities examined the file and decided there was no reason the person deserved the required housing. Furthermore, the official stated the case was being closed, which was astonishingly abrupt and arbitrary. We need to monitor this kind of response and ensure a certain sensitivity applies and that, where there is strong professional representation from both the social services and medical authorities, cases will not be pushed to one side brusquely by someone who does not have complete qualifications in this area. The Minister of State referred to strengthening the link between local needs and the provision of resources and consistency. This is exactly what I was talking about.
I welcome the incremental purchase acquisition scheme, which is a very good idea in that it gives people ownership. In certain circumstances, when one gets a proportion of a house, one pays one's mortgage and accepts full responsibility for the house's maintenance. Surrounding homes may not have been acquired privately and may still be in the hands of the local authority. Is the maintenance monitored for a transition period by the local authorities? It would be rather unfortunate if there were decent people who did not buy their houses, or could not afford to do so or to get a mortgage - this may now become more difficult - who had somebody next door who was not doing proper maintenance on his or her house. Is this being monitored?
The question of anti-social behaviour is really troubling. I am not sure what the solution is, nor am I sure there is one contained in the Bill. There are attempts to address it, and it is certainly not ignored, but we cannot tolerate circumstances in which a person is consistently anti-social in his or her behaviour, be it by way of drug dealing, drunken neglect of property, rowdy parties or antagonising neighbours, and has the neighbour-from-hell syndrome one sees on television programmes. What happens to such people and where do they go? If they cannot provide housing for themselves and if they make themselves impossible tenants for the local authority, is it a case of, "To hell or to Connacht"? The people are still alive and therefore one must ask how society should cope with them.
Senator Maurice Cummins: That is the problem.
Senator David Norris: Is it not a problem? Is there a quarantine area? Do we shove all the people onto Spike Island or some such place?
One aspect of the explanatory memorandum to the Bill that I found to be very positive and refreshing was the fact that it does not have significant financial implications. This means it is probably safer than much other legislation that has been floating around the Houses recently. There is capacity to recycle State money through the various schemes. Therefore, I hope that since it is seen as broadly Exchequer neutral, we can push ahead with it.
I have received some briefings from a group I had not heard of before called MakeRoom, which seems to be a coalition of very responsible bodies such as Simon Communities of Ireland, Focus Ireland and Threshold. Broadly speaking, the organisation is pleased with the Bill but believes it could be strengthened in various ways. There does not seem to be a specific, precise and clear definition of "homelessness" in the Bill. Will the Minister of State provide a definition of "homelessness" to incorporate the criteria I have mentioned? Will he account for equitable assessment and adopt a clearly human rights-based approach to the legislation?
I welcome the Bill. Particularly in the current circumstances, it is important that we continue to provide a positive legislative lead in the sensitive human area of housing. I hope the Minister of State will reassure us that, since the Bill is described as being broadly Exchequer neutral, its provisions will be safe. I hope he may be able to address some of the questions I have raised.
My new-found friends in MakeRoom have indicated they will supply positive and constructive amendments. I am sure many of us have been in contact with the organisation and may have received those amendments. I will be happy to table them or, if my colleagues table them, I will be happy to support them to the extent I regard them as being constructive. From what I have seen of the vague outline given in the briefing document, the amendments will be constructive and helpful. I am sure the Minister of State, whom I remember as a constructive colleague in this House, will find it possible to accept some of them.

Order of Business - 8th October 2008

Order of Business - 8th October 2008
Senator David Norris: We will have to return to the international financial crisis. I am confused because Senator Butler stated that it was a disgrace for Fine Gael to say that the Minister did not understand the situation, then he accused Fine Gael of not understanding the situation either. I am not fully sure I understand the situation, or that I have heard anybody who has given a clear, comprehensive view of how we can get out it. I am somewhat reassured, having listened to my distinguished colleague, Senator Ross, on "Today With Pat Kenny", on how to cope with the situation. He was joined by Mr. Nick Leeson, who agreed with him that there should be a bloodletting at the top of the banks-----
Senator Paul Coghlan: He has some form there.
Senator David Norris: -----and that the banks were guilty of the irresponsible leverage situation. When I heard those two voices agreeing, I said to myself that there is no need for me to worry because I am happy to admit my lack of understanding. However, I now believe the problem is capitalisation, as several people here have indicated. There is now a discordance between the regulator on the one hand, who has said that the banks are properly capitalised, and the instinct of the stock market on the other hand, which clearly does not believe him. This is a matter of confidence and if we are to restore such confidence, it behoves the regulator to come out with more clear, solid factual information. If he is right, this will restore confidence. If he is not right, then we should know it now.

Various European governments, having criticised Ireland for the action it took last week, are now all following us. That suggests we have done the right thing.
With regard to the Morris tribunal, I welcome the report of the very distinguished judge but like some other colleagues, I was very surprised by his comments in the report. He referred to wild claims, but there were wild acts. Members of the Garda Síochána were planting bombs, mixing sodium chlorate in coffee grinders, suborning witnesses-----
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should ask a question of the Leader.
Senator David Norris: I am asking that we should discuss this and I am giving my reasons, such as members of the Garda Síochána planting bombs and lying on oath and so on. Mr. Justice Morris suggested it was wrong to go to the Minister; I think it was very responsible indeed. They did not come into the Oireachtas and use privilege and destroy the reputations of people by name. They went to the Minister. There is a precedent for that which was referred to on the radio last night, when Mr. Liam Cosgrave went to the then Taoiseach, Mr. Jack Lynch, when he was given information about the importation of arms. Mr. Justice Morris appeared to me to suggest that the Members should have investigated this themselves. How could they?
Senator Paul Coghlan: The Senator is correct.
Senator David Norris: We do not have the resources. We have barely enough resources to cope with our workload. We are not an investigative agency and it took the Morris tribunal however many years, however many millions of euro and however many barristers to produce this report. How on earth does Mr. Justice Morris think two honourable, decent representatives could be expected to do the same?
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has made the point. There are other Senators wishing to speak and the time is almost up.
Senator David Norris: I will finish on this point. Deputy Howlin made the point that he was given this information by a senior barrister with 22 years' criminal experience at the Bar and he believed it. It was appropriate to pass on this information to the Minister.
I share the concerns about immigration as expressed by various speakers, including Senator Mullen. The Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill, which will come to the House shortly, is quite defective. I attended a briefing in the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland-----
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator can speak about what he regards as the defects in the Bill when it comes to the House.
Senator David Norris: I wish to make this point because it is in anticipation of the Bill. I have arranged for a briefing for Members of the House by the two legal experts who gave the original briefing because I think we can have a much more informed debate if we listen to a detailed analysis. The briefing will be held in the audio-visual room at the end of the month.

Statements on the Hunger Task Force Report - 7th October 2008

Statements on Hunger Task Force Report - 7th October 2008
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I sat next to him at a meeting last week at which the Society of St. Vincent de Paul launched its report on poverty in Ireland. It made the point that on hunger in this country that the proportion of income spent on food is much higher among the poorer. If that is true in a wealthy country like Ireland, how devastatingly more true must it be in the more disadvantaged parts of the world? As the Minister of State said in his contribution, we in Ireland are in a particular position to appreciate that, and the point was made in the report that all of us have been touched by the ancestral memory of the famine. One of the striking images in Dublin is the famine memorial near the Custom House. In my own family, even though there were fairly substantial people on my mother's side - in 1845 they had very considerable land holdings in County Laois - after the famine they were reduced to a few hundred acres. An entire generation was wiped out because they refused to take rents and they caught famine fever. I know, therefore, from the memory in my own family, how devastating the impact of the famine was and we need to bear that memory in mind imaginatively when we confront the situation in the world.
I share Senator Ormonde's concern that something should be done about this problem and I echo her words. I do not believe it will be done. Even in this House there is not the passionate concern. There is not a crowded chamber with people giving vent to utter horror at the scale of what is going on. We have not woken up yet to the complete scale of the matter. We are not alone in that. That is universal.
The report points out that governments consistently give grandiose commitments in front of the television cameras and then fail to live up to them. That is a scandal. There should be a form of index rating. Every time a government gives a commitment in these areas that they will help fellow human beings in their most dire suffering, we should monitor them and they should be exposed for not doing it and held up to the court of world opinion.
There are ways in which this problem could be dealt with. Very large sums of money might be needed but we only have to look at the squandering of money on armaments. That could be a source of revenue to deal with part of this problem.
I welcome the one brief mention of population in the report but it is not enough. Very few people do; it is the elephant in the room. It is the aspect that underlies so many of our problems, be it resources, the use of fossil fuel, water, international conflict, overcrowding and the increase in world commodity prices.

The population of this small planet has doubled since I did my leaving certificate. Some 860 million people are at the most critical level of poverty. The number of people at that level has increased by more than 860 million during my lifetime. If that increase had not taken place, perhaps we would be in a better position to confront this problem. Nothing can be done until the underlying problem of this planet's gross overpopulation, the extent of which is continuing to increase, is directly confronted. We cannot cope with this exponential increase. I do not mean to be Scrooge-like about it. I do not want people to die so that the planet's surplus population can decrease. However, we must reflect on the impact of overpopulation on human resources, animal life, the extinction of species and global warming. We need to examine the population explosion in the context of any examination of world hunger.
The problem to which I refer is found not just in some of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, but also in countries such as Sudan. It is obscene that the Government of Sudan, which is racked by famine from time to time, is selling its best arable lands to Arab investors so that the considerable crop yield of such lands can be exported. Does that echo in this Chamber? I refer to 1847, when food was exported from this country in the face of the starving people. The Government of Sudan is doing the same thing to its population this minute, as we speak. People said "never again" after the Famine, but the events about which we say "never again" tend to happen repeatedly. We are refusing to learn lessons. We have not heard a peep from our so-called spiritual leaders, some of whom, particularly in the Vatican, have suggested we should breed more people. I do not understand such an attitude. They suggest that there are plenty of resources which, if managed correctly, could feed an amount of people 18 times the current population of the world. While such a model might apply in theory, we would have a totally depleted quality of life if we to had to stand shoulder to shoulder in wretched and miserably overcrowded conditions.
Other Senators have spoken about genetically modified food. I am on the same wavelength as Prince Charles of the neighbouring island in this regard. When he was in India recently, he quite rightly spoke out against Monsanto's production of genetically modified crops in that country by quoting Mahatma Gandhi's line about commerce without morality. He mentioned that there has been a rash of suicides among Indian farmers who were disappointed by the yields arising from genetically modified crops. We are always told that such crops are much better, but that is not true in the case of Monsanto's genetically modified form of cotton, known as bollgard. I presume the bollgard crop was developed to repel the boll weevil. We are aware that such crops tend to invade and contaminate neighbouring fields.
The human motivation behind Monsanto's behaviour is ruthless and naked greed. Some people believe that greed is fine. Margaret Thatcher and others told us that "greed is good". It was good for a limited period, but we need to look at the mess it has got us into now. The financial systems of the western world cannot cope with the aftermath of unbridled greed.
Is it appropriate for a multinational corporation to colonise the choices of individual farmers in countries such as India? I was glad to hear Prince Charles saying something I have been saying for a long time. The comments I have made to defend myself against some of the scientists in Trinity College, for example, have been unpopular. I will continue to say such things because I believe they are true. Even if the scientific merits of genetically modified crops were proven beyond doubt, it would be politically and commercially valuable for Ireland, as an island, to retain its GM-free status as a significant marketing ploy. I was interested to hear Prince Charles suggest that it would be wise and prudent, as a precautionary principle in case some disaster occurs as a result of genetic modification, to ensure some part of the world is kept free of genetically modified crops.
There is overwhelming scientific evidence to suggest it is more efficient to generate foodstuffs from crops that are properly managed with respect for the environment. I refer to organic crops, in particular. Professor Bob Watson, who led the world's biggest agricultural study of this area, showed that organic farming techniques in Brazil increased yields by 250%. The study came to the conclusion that this kind of environmentally friendly farming represented a much better solution than the production of genetically modified crops.
I welcome the report of the Hunger Task Force. It is a good report. It is important to mention that Ban Ki-moon has indicated that a further 100 million people have been affected by these problems since the start of the food crisis. The United Nations millennium development goals now comprise something of a catalogue of shame. The first goal is to reduce by half the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day. This involves reducing by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger, the prevalence of underweight children under the age of five and the percentage of the world's population below the minimum level of dietary energy consumption. These aims are quite modest because they would leave hundreds of millions of the most vulnerable people in the world, women and children included, in the unenviable categories I mentioned. Although the report mentions that there has been a slight percentage decrease in poverty in sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia, if one examines the figures one will appreciate that there has been an actual arithmetical increase in the number of human beings suffering from poverty in such areas. Even though our aims in this regard are quite modest, as I have suggested, we have not achieved them.
Another absolute catalogue of shame is outlined on page 5 of this report. We have all made promises, but have we lived up to them? No. Just five developed countries have reached the target of 0.7% of gross national income. We are moving towards it but we have not got there. I hope we do. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs which has been pushing for it. My colleagues on all sides of the committee, including those on the Government side who represent Fianna Fáil and the Green Party, have joined me in that regard. Why have we not got there yet? The UN's hunger target under the millennium development goals is unlikely to be met in sub-Saharan Africa or south Asia. The more ambitious target set by the World Food Summit will not be met. The official development assistance commitments agreed at the G8 summit at Gleneagles are unlikely to be met. Just five African states have met the target that was set at that summit, which is appalling. It is catastrophic. We need to take the strongest possible measures.
As Senator Ormonde said, 2 billion people in developing countries suffer from anaemia. The former Senator, Mary Henry, who has visited such areas, told us all that the simplest medical intervention could prevent anaemia at a minimal cost. We have not done that, however. There is an impact on education. Children cannot concentrate if they have hunger in their bellies. They are sometimes too weak to get to school. That is what we are facing. If one examines the graphs in the report - I appreciate that they cannot be reproduced in the Official Report - one will see that there has been a staggering Alpine leap in the graph depicting world commodity prices. Other graphs relate to global grain consumption and the question of population, which no one will tackle. The wealthy countries are resorting to bio-fuels. We thought that was the answer, but that attempt to atone for our greed for fuel resources has had an impact on the food crisis.

Order of Business - 7th October 2008

Order of Business - 7th October 2008
Senator David Norris: I welcome the fact that we are having statements on the banking system tomorrow, which may or not be replaced by the detail of the Bill. The debate in this House on the detail of the Bill will be critical because the Minister got a blank cheque last week. It is now very important that we use the wisdom and expertise in this House, including on these benches, which can help to guide the progress of this scheme. The banks have shown a contempt over a long period for their ordinary customers. I am not referring to the counter staff but rather to the people leading the banks and devising policy, those sorting people into very long queues and reducing staff at the counters, making their lives difficult as well, and showing that they really did not want the little people. However, now they have come to the little people to be bailed out by their tax revenues. I said last week in the House and I said it before this crisis arose that there are people, in particular young people, on critical mortgages who need to be protected. People both here and in America have taken substantial bonuses. I refer to the obscene spectacle of the chief executive officer of Lehman Brothers who took $500 million in the past year in bonuses, share issues and such like. Such people have had their snouts stuck in the trough while repossessions have been taking place. The House should address that point, either in that context or separately. I suggest the question of house repossession should be taken as a separate item. I have been raising this matter consistently. I note in today's newspaper that a senior judge has raised concerns at the increase in the number of repossession orders presented in her court as we speak.
This is completely obscene. This is where neo-liberal economics, deregulation, privatisation and outsourcing leads. I was one of a small minority which opposed the privatisation of Aer Lingus. I had a feeling where such a move would lead and now we have outsourcing. I share Senator Alex White's concern that perhaps this is an attempt to jump the gun legislatively, so to speak, because some legislative protections were in the process of being introduced in the aftermath of the disgraceful manner in which Irish Ferries treated its Irish employees and brought in so-called yellow pack workers. This is not acceptable. I note also the number of people contacting the money advice and budgeting service for advice.
I support strongly my colleague, Senator Joe O'Toole, in his reservations about the second item on the Order Paper. What is the need for this extra number? Who are they and have they been contacted directly? This is a Minister interfering in and politicising the work of a committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas. This is not the first time this Minister has done this and it rings alarm bells for me. I do not like this kind of interference in the work of the committees. The strength of the committees is that they are non-partisan and operate collectively.
In light of our concerns about oversight of spending and decentralisation, will the Leader find out the state of the proposals to develop new government offices in Carlow on a car park which for many years has been subjected routinely to flooding to such an extent that the new proposed buildings would have to be built on stilts 7 ft. above the ground? There is no indication that this will be done after the €20 million flood prevention scheme has been installed. Are we still wasting money in this profligate manner with no thought-----
An Cathaoirleach: If the Senator raises this matter on the Adjournment of the House, he will receive an answer to his inquiry.
Senator David Norris: I thank the Cathaoirleach for his suggestion and I may well do so. I appreciate very much his guidance in this matter.

Order of Business - 2nd October 2008

Order of Business - 2nd October 2008
Senator David Norris: It is highly interesting and revealing that there are voices, including
some from the Government benches, indicating that choppy waters still lie ahead and this must
be taken into account. The Oireachtas acted yesterday and earlier this morning to address all
it could, which are the local symptoms of an international difficulty. I believe it all goes back
to neoliberal economics. I refer to people such as Margaret Thatcher, who stated that one has
an economy and who downplayed the role of society. To her, the economy, rather than society,
was the important thing. It is not. The building societies here and in Britain demutualised, lost
such social responsibility and opted for profit. At the back of much of this is greed and
gambling.
The problem is that we live in a highly sophisticated world. Money is nothing other than the
symbolic representation of energy. In the old days, one worked for a farmer and was repaid
with a sack of corn, services or something similar. Society then moved on to the point where
symbolic representations were used, such as a pound note, ten shillings or whatever it was.
While that symbol represented a reality, unfortunately I believe it has become divorced from
reality. Instruments have been developed such as derivatives, whereby even the bank executives
did not understand with what they were gambling and this situation has arisen as a result.
I will return to a point I made yesterday, namely, that in the light of the increasing number
of repossessions, we should act decisively to ensure the rights and well-being of ordinary citizens
who are caught in this crunch which is not of their own making. It is important that the
aforementioned detail from the framework will be monitored in order that we can examine
such issues. I compliment my colleagues on ensuring the amendment from this House, of which
Members can be justly proud, went through.
While I agree with my colleague, Senator O’Toole, when he raised the question of water,
the focus may have been somewhat narrow. It is not simply a question of the Shannon. Major
issues exist concerning water quality nationwide. This morning information emerged regarding
a highly serious situation in the Drogheda and Dundalk areas in respect of a significant element
of lead pollution, which apparently was up to four times the level of safety. I ask the Leader
to facilitate a debate on water quality as a national issue, rather than being confined to the
Shannon.
Next Sunday will mark the 40th anniversary of the attack by the authorities in Northern
Ireland on the civil rights march in Derry and this will be commemorated. In that context,
would it not be appropriate to review developments in the North of Ireland in the form of a
Seanad debate? There is much to be welcomed. The agreement between extremely opposed
parties in the North is something that astonishes those who, like me, lived through the Troubles.
However, there is some way to go because yesterday I was shocked to read, on my return from
abroad, that Unionists on Limavady Borough Council have blocked the extending of the freedom
of the borough to a former Presbyterian minister, the Reverend David Armstrong.
The proposal was made to commemorate the fact that on Christmas day nearly a quarter of
a century ago Reverend Armstrong walked across the road from his Presbyterian church to
give Christmas greetings to the Roman Catholic congregation of the church of his friend, a
Roman Catholic priest, Fr. Kevin Mullan. I come from a Southern Unionist background and
as an Anglican and, I suppose, Protestant, I cannot understand how, in terms of decent Unionism
or anything approximating to decent Protestantism, the Unionist members of Limavady
Borough Council could refuse to give consent to this proposal and effectively block it. There
is nothing in my understanding of Unionism and certainly Protestantism that one would put
oneself in the corner of the bully boys without at least providing an adequate explanation of
one’s actions. I hope the House will call upon the Unionist members of the council to do so.

Human Body Organs and Human Tissue Bill 2008 - Second Stage - 1st October 2008

Human Body Organs and Human Tissue Bill 2008 - Second Stage - 1st October 2008

Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Moloney, to the House and I welcome his useful review of the situation. I also very emphatically welcome the clear indication he gave of Government support for the general principles behind Senator Quinn's Bill. I compliment Senator Quinn on his initiative in producing this legislation. It is no easy matter to produce a Bill. This is a very important area and one in which the advised view of the Seanad can be useful. It is also an area of some little delicacy in certain aspects.
My brain is somewhere over the Mediterranean because I have just come back from Cyprus by a very circuitous route. I put that on the record partly because I am rambling but also because in reviewing the literature I could not help but notice that, appropriately enough, it was a Cypriot European health Commissioner, Markos Kyprianou, who launched a significant report in this area in 2007. Even a small and fairly remote country such as Cyprus, which is still very much an agricultural community, has, through the human experience of its people, witnessed the need for action in this area. One of the things that moved me about what Senator Quinn said - I did not actually hear it, but I read his script, which he kindly supplied me with about half an hour ago - was the story of Mr. David Ryan.

No one could fail to be moved by the way in which Senator Quinn put a human face on this matter. Few of us who have not been placed in this situation could possibly comprehend the agony of being on a waiting list and waiting for a tragedy to occur to another family in order that that person might continue his or her life. I do not frequently concur with the views expressed by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, but I am glad to say - I am sure it will go to Senator Quinn's heart - on this occasion I can. Recently the Pope indicated that he had a donor card. He regards it "an act of human love" to give life to somebody after one's own death. It need not necessarily even be life. It could be the gift of proper eyesight, proper functioning in other areas or improved functioning.
Among the areas the Minister of State reviewed was the question of opt-in, opt-out and the third option which is mandated choice. This is one favoured by the British Royal College of Physicians. Under that option legislation would be passed that decisions would be required by law to indicate before death a person's position. That affects an entire range of areas. In this country where we do not have a mandated choice or an opt-out situation, a person could be killed tragically and that person may have wanted his or her organs to be donated, but the views of the family take precedence. I am not sure that is wise. While the sensitivity of the grieving family must be considered, I am certain that in a case where a person has clearly indicated he or she wants his or her organs to be used then that should have legal precedence. I welcome that the Minister of State has indicated this is what the Government would envisage subsequent to the passage of legislation.
We must also take into account the Madden report. I must say some of the communications I have received from Parents for Justice seem to have a slightly shrill tone, including suggesting that Senator Quinn should go back to the dictionary for a definition of the word, which is a kind of debating point. I am not sure it does its case any good by making this kind of point, although, of course, I have not had, nor am I likely to have, the experience of being a parent or a bereaved parent. I can understand that feelings may very well be exacerbated in such a situation. However, I have known a number of people who have had transplants. It came as an enormous surprise to me that the late dean of Christ Church was one. In speaking to him on one occasion I was quite unaware that he had received a heart transplant. For someone of my generation it is astonishing that medical science has progressed to this extent.
I note in his contribution, which I heard, Senator O'Toole used the word "harvesting" of organs. The Senator used the term in the neutral sense. However, in the wider global political spectrum the Senator would be the very person who would be concerned about the word "harvesting" because he and I were among those who raised the question of the Chinese Government detaining Falun Gong prisoners and using them as live organ banks so that they could be killed to order and their organs harvested. It is reasonable to include in this important debate from a humanitarian point of view our continued revulsion of using human beings as a kind of organ bank.
In the neighbouring island of Britain there was a campaign sponsored by The Observer newspaper - I am not sure if other colleagues have referred to it. It is interesting that the overwhelming number of Members of Parliament surveyed were in favour of precisely the type of legislation Senator Quinn has urged upon the House this evening. They were supported by a very significant range of professional bodies. The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Pathologists all came out in favour of the opt-out approach. That is very important because, as may well have been said, we must face the fact that ten people every day in the European Union die for lack of organ transplant availability.
In his speech the Minister of State referred to Spain. I wish he had been more specific. He simply said something to the effect that although Spain has a very high proportion of organ donors, the originator of the opt-out scheme was not convinced that it was responsible. I would like to know more about that. I would like to know precisely what he said and precisely what factors the Minister of State believes were important. Were they education, a television and media campaign or something else? The figures are rather stark. Spain is the highest with 34.6 donations per 1 million people and the lowest is Romania with 0.5 donations per 1 million. The Minister of State did not tell us where in this spectrum Ireland fits. It would be very useful for us to know.
We know there are a considerable number of these operations. In case nobody else has put them on the record I would like to do so. Since 1985 there have been 261 heart transplants up to March 2008. While that is by far the largest transplant number, I would have thought it is still comparatively small. Since 2005 there have been ten single-lung transplants and six double-lung transplants. Here again we come to the heart of the human matter. One of the most insidious diseases is cystic fibrosis. The only real relief that can be gained by a patient from this terrible disease is by a lung transplant. That there have been only ten single-lung transplants and six double-lung transplants since 2005 indicates a need for a great development here. Some 32 people are on transplant waiting lists for lungs. I again return to the appalling situation of people left waiting and not knowing whether they will have the possibility of life.
We must consider the matter in an overall European context. The Eurobarometer survey has indicated that 56% of European people are prepared to donate one of their organs to an organ donation service immediately after their deaths and probably would support this kind of legislation. We must have an informed debate and I congratulate Senator Quinn. There are risks, for example if proper procedures are not followed, of receiving into the body not just the health-giving organ, but also malignant organisms such as HIV infection, hepatitis C etc. There needs to be full and proper quality control and infection risk monitoring. Various types of bacteria, fungi, parasites and cancers can be transmitted. We have already referred to organ shortages and there is the question of organ trafficking, which apparently exists in Europe at a very low level and underneath the general radar.
We need to consider the legislation very carefully. I commend Senator Quinn on producing it. It would be useful to place it in a European context and review the debate that took place next door in the United Kingdom.
Acting Chairman (Senator Michael McCarthy): The Senator's time has concluded.
Senator David Norris: I will come to the end of my sentence with the Acting Chairman's permission.
Acting Chairman: In fact the Senator has gone over time. I have been extra lenient.
Senator David Norris: Not at all. We need to consider the matter in a European-wide context with a view to introducing an EU-wide donor card regime. I compliment Senator Quinn on his imaginative and very useful proposals here this evening.

Order of Business - 1st October 2008

Order of Business - 1st October 2008
Senator David Norris: I am a little surprised to come back to the House and hear what seem to be echoes of the American Congress debate, which I thought was disgraceful, particularly the behaviour of the Republicans. George Bush was a rotten President and has now shown he cannot even deliver his own maggoty troops and Mr. Mc Cain is a person who has fought for the past 20 years against any regulation in the financial industry. If the Americans put Mr. McCain in as President, they will deserve every financial calamity that occurs and every foreign policy result. This crisis all came about through greed and started with people like Thatcher and Bush.
I have not yet had an opportunity to look at the Bill, but I hope there will something in it to protect the homes of the people. A number of people here - mine was not the only voice - spoke about the dangers of giving excessive mortgages of 100% or 110% and the danger of negative equity. Now people are caught and there have been repossessions. Some 126 orders were granted in the past year for the repossession of homes by financial institutions and 104 went to the Circuit Court. This must stop. If taxpayers are bailing out the financial institutions, ordinary, decent, working people, who were squeezed by them when they did not give a damn about their customers, must be protected.
I wish to raise one other issue. We have often spent time discussing the Middle East.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator made a personal remark relating to the President of another country. Those people are elected by the people of the relevant country.
Senator David Norris: There is a question mark about that. President Bush should be impeached and is guilty of war crimes. There are many people in this House who would agree with that. The sooner he is gone the better.
An Cathaoirleach: We are on the Order of Business, not discussing the American President.
Senator David Norris: I know, but I will defend my right to attack Bush in the interests of decency and international law.
An Cathaoirleach: We will take questions to the Leader. The time is almost up.
Senator David Norris: I indicated I have a question about foreign affairs for the Leader. This concerns the Middle East, in particular the situation in Iraq, where Mr. Bush has also stuck his jammy little fingers in to disastrous effect and has installed a puppet regime there.
An Cathaoirleach: Please put a question on the Order of Business.
Senator David Norris: A member of the Iraqi Parliament who visited Israel in order to understand the people so opposed to him has had his immunity lifted. On his previous visit to Israel, his two sons were assassinated in a bomb attack aimed at him. We need a debate on this issue. I would welcome if we could send a protest to the Iraqi Parliament. People need to meet on these sensitive issues to discuss them. The man in question is Mithal Alusi and I heard him on the BBC World Service. The rights of parliamentarians must be maintained in the interest of proper diplomacy.