Statements on the IMF and OECD Reports - 10th July 2009

Statements on IMF and OECD Reports - 10th July 2009
Senator David Norris: I wish to share my time equally with Senator Quinn.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is that agreed? Agreed.
Senator David Norris: Perhaps you might indicate when that barrier has been reached so that I can break it. This is not a tsunami and is not an inevitable naturally occurring phenomenon. It is man made and there must be a way out of it. It is a mirror image of the 1929 crash, of which people of my generation heard but had not experienced and that is worrying as we are back in the same situation. However, there are some positive developments. In additional to its report on Ireland, the IMF produced a report on Wednesday indicating that the world economy was starting a recovery but that it was likely to be weak and we might hit the double bounce situation rather than having an sustained economy and that would be extremely worrying.
There is obviously an attempt by Government to spin the IMF report, which is by and large new large neutral.
Deputy Billy Kelleher: No.
Senator David Norris: Yes, there is. The other side are spinning it furiously in the opposite direction. I am not interested in that, but I am interested in one partiuclar fact, that is, that in none of the contributions so far, either by the Minister of State and the Government speakers or Opposition speakers has there been any mention of the moral parameters which led to this. This has been instigated by greed, folly, gambling, stupidity and all these things which the western cultural tradition should have warned us against.
I find it unusual that I am in agreement with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. It is interesting that he recently issued an encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, Charity in Truth, in which he rejects unbriddled market capitalism and the unrelated market describing them as thoroughly destructive in their abuse of the system. He indicates that every economic decision has a moral dimension and looks for forms of redistribution of wealth. This is not what I expected to hear from the Pope but I very much welcome it. One of the deficiencies is that while there is a lot of fact, some of which is disputed, a lot of economy theory, there is no recognition of the fact this difficulty was created through means that were grossly immoral, and there is recognition to the need to re-establish a moral parameter in which profit is not the only motivating consideration.
The Pope suggests international regulation and he makes the good point that, "the conviction that the econmy must be autonomous, that it must be shielded from "influences" of a moral character, has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way". He is right.
We heard Margaret Thatcher say that there was no such thing as society, there is only the economy. Other people has said nakedly greed is good. People engage for short-term profit not the long-term perspective of business that, for all their faults, the Victorians, with their paternalism and their attempt to take care of the workers, people like Cadbury, Guiness and these sort of peple, this has all been lost.
This, and I have been saying this for some considerable time, but I am interested to see that the re is a report also in todays newspaper of the Nobel prize winning economist, Professor Amartya Sen from Harvard University and I heard him speak on the radio this morning. He gave a lecture yesterday entitled "On Global Confusion". He suggested that what we need is a new capitalism. That in my opinion makes it all the more disastrous that the Americans and conservative religious elements, including the Vatican, conspire to destroy that extraordinary and unique experiment in Nicaragua where they were attempting to pick the best out of capitalism, the best out of communism, bring them together without fear of ideological label in the interests of humanity.
It is interesting that Adam Smith is often promoted as an advocate of the free market system, yet Professor Amartya Sen quoted a sentence from Adam Smith wrote at the start of his first book in 1759. Adam Smith wrote:
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature , which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it.
Professor Amartya Sen said that we have to go beyond merely the profit motive. The same extends to this notion of competitiveness and competition. it is tragic that so many people confuse competition with competitiveness. Competitiion does not always lead to competitiveness. We need only think of the disaster of Eircom where it was spun out to the capitalist moguls to be asset-stripped and then flung back. Now we have disastrous telephone system. The only reason we have access to phones is because of mobile telephones which are no responsibility of Eircom.
I was pleased to see that the Minister for Transport, Deputy Noel Dempsey, gave an assurance that the metro would go ahead. That will provide not only useful infrastructure but will also provide employment. Finally, in conclusion, and to end, as politicians always say when they are going to go on for another whiile, but I am not, it is very important that we do not dehumanise economics, that we understand that it is a moral not just a technical failure. Unless we address the moral issues we will not get back to the situation we were in. Perhaps we should not get back to precisely the same situation because it was the springboard into this mess.
My very last point is this; when this crisis has been addressed, and even while it is being addressed, we must look at the elephant in the room, which is population. Taht is what is driving every single problem; the extinction of animal species all over the planet, global warming, resource wars, the using up of fossil fuels and the basic problem of water shortages. If we do not put those things in moral perspective and learn to share and to respect this planet then we will be everlastingly in this cycle of misery and unhappiness.

Order of Business - 10th July 2009

Order of Business - 10th July 2009

Senator David Norris: I endorse the comments made by other Members that we are being made totally irrelevant by the chaotic management of business and the rushing through of legislation. I have just been listening to one of our distinguished colleagues, the only one of our group who did not speak on the Defamation Bill, doing an extremely good job on Pat Kenny. That shows that the radio is much more relevant than this House. That is thanks to the disgraceful way in which the business is being organised.
Senator O'Toole and I have been discussing the matter and we would like to propose a motion. I understand that my colleague, Senator Quinn, will second it. It is that we should discuss as the first item today the rushing of legislation through this House and the implications of that procedure. We have seen the report from the Irish Human Rights Commission that points out, for example, that the Bill cannot become operational until October, yet the other House has guillotined it and, as Senator Alex White indicated and I pointed out earlier in the week, we cannot realistically expect to get any amendments passed. The Irish Human Rights Commission has offered to human rights-proof the legislation but the Government has completely snubbed that offer.
Senator O'Toole is 100% correct, that this is all of a piece with the mean-minded attempts to dismantle every organisation that articulates the needs of the poor. I have been saying that for a very long time. We have just had the last ever independent report of the Combat Poverty Agency. If one reads between the lines and articles by the agency's previous chief executives, one will realise how dangerous is the situation. In these circumstances, if one does not allow a safety valve for people who are being pressurised by the economic climate, and if one instead screws the lid down so that they cannot get expression for those views, one is creating a volatile and dangerous situation.
The legislation that was passed yesterday was very important. It is a pity we did not have even more extensive discussion on it in the light of developments that have taken place since that Bill was first discussed in the House. I refer to the quite extraordinary situation in England where the Murdoch press has been exposed for buying the work of telephone tappers, for inciting criminal action against the private rights of citizens. That was done with the collaboration of the police and other elements in society that should know better. I look forward to the privacy Bill because there must be balance. We must have a privacy Bill if the press is to be protected or over-protected. Look at how utterly ineffective the British Press Council was in this matter.
An Cathaoirleach: Did Senator Norris say he was opposing the Order of Business?
Senator David Norris: No. I am proposing an amendment that instead we take as the first item a discussion on the rushing of legislation through this House.
Senator Terry Leyden: That is irrelevant.
Senator David Norris: It is not a bit irrelevant. It is a lot more relevant than you are, Senator Leyden.
Senator Terry Leyden: Thank you. It takes one to know one.
Senator David Norris: As we say in Irish, aithníonn ciaróg ciaróg eile. You are a fine flourishing ciaróg over there.

Defamation Bill 2006 (Seanad Bill amended by the Dail) - Report and Final Stages - 9th July 2009

Defamation Bill 2006 (Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil) - Report and Final Stages - 9th July 2009.
Senator David Norris: I support these amendments because it is important that there should be a review and if there is no timescale, it could go into limbo. In light of the considerable debate, particularly when the Bill was before the House in its previous incarnation and a number of us on both sides tried to sabotage elements of it because we were concerned about the effect its operation would have on libel law and citizens' rights, it is important that there should be a review within a specified time to ascertain if our fears were justified and to take into account case law.
There was a celebrated case in recent times where an unfortunate man was murdered in a Dublin suburb and the newspapers got hold of a story, describing him as being trussed up like a pig, suggesting it was some kind of bizarre sexual experimentation. The fact he was gay was bandied about the papers to the intense distress of his family. No proper apology or recompense was made by certain sections of the press that published this to the distress of the family. There is nothing in the law that gives the families in these circumstances any right to secure real retribution. This sort of case should be reviewed when the law is being looked at again.
It is very important, particularly when we are making significant changes, that we monitor implementation of legislation and its consequences so we can improve the legislation in the light of experience. To hold the review within one year is a very good idea.






(Deputy Dermot Ahern)
This is an area of law that evolves on a daily basis. One of the reasons for the delay in passing this legislation since its publication is that things have changed not just on this island but also across the water. Many judgments handed down in the UK have implications for our law. I hazard a guess that we will be coming to review this legislation sooner than the time limit of five years. A Fine Gael amendment specified that the review be completed in three months but we felt that was too short a period because of the requirement for consultation, thus, it is up to one year.
The issue of defamation of a deceased person has been subject to much examination by me, my officials and others. We have considered whether such provisions exist in other jurisdictions that have similar defamation laws to ours and we have not come across anything that would help us in that regard. Section 39 allows for the survival of causes of action on death, but that obviously does not take care of the situation raised by Senators Norris and Walsh. As I said in the Dáil, this is a subject that needs to be revisited.
Senators may recall that my immediate predecessor suggested that the Privacy Bill 2006, which is on the Order Paper in this House, be left aside for a period to allow the Press Council to become established. At the launch of the annual report of the Press Council and the Office of the Press Ombudsman I indicated that I would progress that issue and spoke of the necessity of a period of consultation with the wider public. There was consultation with the various interests on the Privacy Bill but I am always suspicious of such consultation; there should also be consultation with the wider community, particularly in an area such as this in which the wider public are not really interested until they or people in their families are affected. To a certain extent there is a silent majority who would have a view, I have no doubt, if they were put in particular circumstances, as happened to the family in Clontarf mentioned by Senator Norris. They feel helpless and that there is nowhere for them to go. In that context we will commence the wider consultation process on the issue of privacy and then return to the Bill.
I raised the issue of defaming deceased people with the chairperson of the Press Council and the Office of the Press Ombudsman. In the code of practice of the Press Council, principles Nos. 4 and 5 are of particular relevance. Principle No. 4 sets out the standards to be met in respect of the right to protect one's good name, while Principle No. 5 sets out the standards for respecting the privacy of individuals. Paragraph 5.3 sets out the standards to be adhered to with regard to situations of grief or shock and the respect to be afforded to grieving families. My information is that the press ombudsman and Press Council are taking a proactive stance to ensure the print media adhere to those standards. That will give some comfort to families such as those mentioned by Senators Walsh and Norris. It is an issue we can return to, particularly in the context of a review.




Senator David Norris: It is a mixed bag and I welcome some of the amendments. Amendment No. 18, as the Minister said, is intended to facilitate an early apology, because apologies are more effective the closer they are to the commission of the offence by publication. However, the Minister knows well I am not a fan of the defence of fair and reasonable publication. Much material appears in the press which is very dubious and the idea that it is published in good faith is questionable. There is quite a lot of bad faith around and I am not convinced these amendments address it or the questions of public interest and benefit.
This morning it was revealed by The Guardian that agents of Mr. Rupert Murdoch - that cancer on the face of the media - have managed to corrupt the British process almost entirely. It has been drawn to the attention of the courts that agents of Mr. Murdoch's news empire suborned third parties and paid them illegally to hack into e-mail systems and eavesdrop on telephone conversations, and did so in the interest of publishing scandalous material about people in the public eye. It was done in the case of Mr. Prescott. Apparently his private arrangements were displayed in public to the distress of him and his family.
I am not certain there is any public interest in that at all. Yet, as a result of that the case never really came to a conclusion. I understand Mr. Murdoch and his agents bought the people off for millions of pounds. Therefore, there was no ultimate judgment and the police collaborated in the suppression from the public of the commission of criminal offences by major newspapers in Britain and the invasion and violation of peoples' privacy. That is a very serious matter.
Despite what the Minister said, I retain my reservations about the idea of fair and reasonable publication. I do not like it and it is something we imported via the UK from the United States of America. It is a matter I hope the Minister will review. I understand there is no possibility of a vote on this issue, so once more I want to put my reservations on the record.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: Amendment No. 28 refines the text of amendment No. 34 to use the more correct term "defamatory libel", rather than the previous "criminal libel", which is more of a catch-all phrase for various types of libel. This change has been advised by the Offices of the Attorney General and the Parliamentary Counsel.
Amendment No. 29 provides for a new section to modernise the current law in section 13 of the Defamation Act 1961 in regard to providing sanctions for the constitutional offence of blasphemous libel. Senators should note that, despite what one might read in the papers, the Bill introduces no new statutory offence of criminal and defamatory libel.
Senator David Norris: The Minister, above all, should know that one cannot believe what one reads in the papers.
Deputy Dermot Ahern: Does the Senator mean even in the paper of record? Senators may recall that this House agreed the deletion from the Bill of a provision regarding the publication of gravely harmful statements, which were in the Bill as originally published. The decision of the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to delete that provision was widely acclaimed. He did, however, indicate clearly both on Committee Stage in the Seanad, on 11 December 2007, and on Report Stage, on 11 March 2008, that we had to address the issue of an appropriate legislative response on blasphemous libel in regard to offences contained in Article 40.6.1o of the Constitution. I would not disagree that the optimal approach, and certainly one which I would find most preferable, would be to abolish the offence of blasphemous libel.
Senator David Norris: Good.
Senator Ivana Bacik: Good.
Deputy Dermot Ahern: However, for a number of reasons, it would not be my intention to bring forward proposals for a referendum at this time. Thus, in order to complete the long awaited reform of defamation we must now - we have an obligation under the Constitution-----
Senator David Norris: We do not.
Deputy Dermot Ahern: -----address this matter. My immediate predecessor as Minister indicated here in the Seanad on two occasions that we must address the appropriate legislative provision of blasphemous libel in regard to offences contained in the relevant article of the Constitution. It is stated in plain English and one could not get any plainer than this. Article 40.6.1o states:
The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.
It cannot be any plainer.

It is being incorrectly alleged that neither of my predecessors felt there was a need for this. A member of the Labour Party was on a programme and said something that was a complete untruth, and he knew it. The Minister, Deputy Lenihan, said on 11 March 2008:
If we repeal, in full, the provisions of the 1961 Act in reforming the defamation laws, we create a gap unless some provision is made for constitutional offences. We must also be mindful of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Corway v. Independent Newspapers in 1999, where the Supreme Court indicated a need to address the law on blasphemy. At this stage, I would suggest our duty is to ensure that there is no gap created in the case of these offences, which are recognised by the Constitution. [Indeed, they are the only criminal offences recognised in the Constitution.] I reiterated this very clear position on Second Stage during the debate in the Dáil on 8 May 2008. My predecessor as Minister and I clearly signalled that a new legislative proposal regarding blasphemous libel would have to be made at some stage on Committee Stage in the Dáil.
The deletion of Article 46.1.1° was recommended by the constitutional review group in 1996, and more recently in July 2008 by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution in its report entitled "Article 46.1.1 - Freedom of Expression", which dealt, inter alia, with blasphemy. Deletion was also recommended by the Law Reform Commission in its report in 1991, but they also recommended a number of other matters. However, the committee saw no need for a constitutional amendment in the short term, but rather that we might avail of any appropriate opportunity in the future.
Senator Joe O'Toole: October 2.
Senator Ivana Bacik: Lisbon II.
Deputy Dermot Ahern: I do not know what the Senators are talking about.
Senator David Norris: He is suggesting that we add a referendum to remove blasphemy to the second referendum on the Lisbon treaty.
Deputy Dermot Ahern: I understand. I do not know whether Senator Norris knocks on doors on North Great Georges Street, but I knock on doors in O'Hanlon Park in Dundalk, and when I go around knocking on doors asking people to vote in favour of the Lisbon treaty, I do not relish-----
Senator David Norris: The Government can get the blasphemy law through first.
Deputy Dermot Ahern: -----asking at the same time if they want to take blasphemy out of the Constitution. I hazard a guess that Senator Norris might not get the response he wants when he knocks on doors in O'Hanlon Park.
Senator David Norris: I accept the Minister's invitation to travel to Dundalk and knock on doors with him. The Minister can do Lisbon and I will do blasphemy.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Minister, without interruption. We must stick to the amendments. The Minister is inviting trouble.
Deputy Dermot Ahern: The joint Oireachtas committee again saw no need for a constitutional amendment in the short term, but rather that we might avail-----
Senator David Norris: That is because it is not being used, because-----
Deputy Dermot Ahern: -----of an appropriate opportunity in the future.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Minister, without interruption.
Deputy Dermot Ahern: We do not have the luxury of a "do nothing" approach.
Senator David Norris: Why not?
Senator Ivana Bacik: We have done nothing for ten years.
Deputy Dermot Ahern: I will answer that. In the Bill, we are repealing the Defamation Act 1961. The continuation of the current provision at section 13 of that Act is not a desirable option. Section 13 provides for both monetary and prison sanctions in regard to blasphemous or obscene libel, offences which were presumed to exist at common law. However, the decision of the Supreme Court in the 1999 case of Corway v . Independent Newspapers - the only blasphemy case brought since the Constitution came into effect - held that the common law offence of blasphemous libel did not survive the adoption of the Constitution. That decision created an anomaly in regard to the obligation in respect of the Constitutional provision. Therefore, to continue with and complete the reform of our defamation legislation, I must respect the advice of successive Attorneys General that there is a constitutional obligation and imperative on me not to leave a legal void following a repeal of section 13 of the 1961 Act. It is not just me as Minister; the Oireachtas is not entitled under the Constitution to leave that legal void.
While some may regard the constitutional provision as redundant, as the joint committee did, the legal advice available to me from the Attorney General indicates that the committee's report did not change the legal position. Until the Constitution is amended, it is necessary that a sanction be provided in regard to blasphemous libel. There is no current, credible alternative to this position. Amendment No. 30 has the effect of retaining in section 36 of the Bill the power to seize copies of blasphemous statements. The title has been changed and some textual amendments have been made, so that we are now dealing with the seizure of blasphemous material that may be ordered by the court on foot of a successful prosecution.
We have three options on this. We can have a referendum and change this. We can pass a section dealing with blasphemous libel in order to comply with the Constitution, or we could just drop this Bill altogether.
Senator David Norris: Great.
Deputy Dermot Ahern: That was an option. Some people have suggested that we could repeal the entire Act and leave section 13, which contains the existing offence of blasphemous libel. However, we cannot do that because of the Corway case. The Corway judgment stated that there was a need to address this issue, and it stated that we effectively had to come back to address the existing offence of blasphemous libel. We cannot repeal the entire Act and leave section 13 in place. Even if we could leave section 13 in place, it would leave in place the possibility of imprisonment for blasphemous libel. It would leave the possibility that a private citizen could bring a prosecution for blasphemous libel. Our amendment takes out the threat of imprisonment, so there will only be a fine that is being reduced from €100,000 to €25,000. Some people have suggested that we should reduce that further. I would like to do that, but then the offence will be brought into the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, and I think we would all prefer if it was dealt with in the High Court.
Senator Ivana Bacik: On a point of order, the Minister states that he wants to keep this in the High Court. We are clearly talking about a criminal offence. Does he mean that this would be prosecuted in the Central Criminal Court?
Deputy Dermot Ahern: Yes.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I understood that the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court is limited to murder, rape and treason. Where is the provision for such an offence?
Deputy Dermot Ahern: It would be in the Central Criminal Court, which is in the jurisdiction of the High Court.
Senator Ivana Bacik: Where is the provision for that? This did not occur to me, as I assumed it would be in the Circuit Court.
Senator Jim Walsh: Are we in a "Questions & Answers" situation?
Acting Chairman (Senator John Paul Phelan): No, we are not.
Senator Ivana Bacik: Perhaps the Minister might clarify.
Deputy Dermot Ahern: We are ensuring that only the DPP will take a prosecution, and not a private citizen. We are also taking the sentence of imprisonment out of the section, so what we are doing is better than leaving section 13 as it is, which we are not allowed to do anyway due to the Corway case. While the Senators shout and harangue-----
Senator Joe O'Toole: We would never do that.
Deputy Dermot Ahern: -----we cannot ignore the Constitution. The Constitution is specific that this is an offence punishable in accordance with the law. We are the legislators and we must provide that law.
If we decide to leave it to some future stage, we will be in dereliction of our duty as legislators under the Constitution. I have heard what the Joint Committee on the Constitution has had to say. I appreciate that it has received legal advice. It has suggested, on the basis of the legal advice it has received, that we should look into the hearts of the people who drafted the Constitution. That is the effect of what the committee is saying. We do not have that luxury, however. We cannot look into the hearts of Éamon de Valera and those who helped him to draft the Constitution. Whether we like it or not, we have to legislate on the basis of what the Constitution says in black and white.
There is nothing we can do about the failure of the Oireachtas to do anything between 1937 and 1961. The Members of the Oireachtas of that era obviously decided, as the Joint Committee on the Constitution did some time back, that a referendum on the matter should be postponed until another day. As I said in the Dáil, our legislators decided to flunk it between 1937 and 1961. When the Defamation Bill 1961 was eventually introduced, the Government obviously operated on the basis of the same advice we are being given today, which is that if one is to legislate for all aspects of defamation, under the Constitution one must provide for an offence of blasphemous libel. The crime of blasphemy has been included in our laws, in accordance with the Constitution, since 1961. Severe doubts about the definitions used in those laws were raised in the Corway case. Nothing has been done since then. I am advised that we cannot pass this legislation without addressing that issue. We cannot let it go until another day. In the absence of a referendum in the immediate future, we will have to agree this legislation. It is as simple as that. While Senators may criticise that approach, they cannot deny that we are constitutionally obliged to provide for an offence of blasphemy in our laws.

Senator Rónán Mullen
The reasonable person does not have to believe in the concept, he just must see genuine merit in it. I could say I did not like a particular episode of "Father Ted" but it has genuine artistic value.
The problem is that there are religious concepts and matters of controversy between religions where one cannot claim the necessary protection - I say this as someone who worked for five and a half years as press officer for the Catholic diocese of Dublin so I know a little about what I am saying - because one does not come under the heading of having literary, artistic, political, scientific or academic merit.
The Minister is rightly tabling these amendments to allay fears that this anti-blasphemy legislation would be used in a way that would be oppressive of the free expression of ideas. I applaud him for that. An American writer described anti-Catholicism as the last acceptable prejudice but we are not talking about that here because this applies not only to Catholics. We must not make the mistake of thinking that the only people who are not entitled to protection in society are people with religious views. That is what will happen when we extend a protection for free speech for people who produce material or express ideas in which a person might find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific or academic merit while excluding the possibility of there being a religious value.
A person does not have to share a view to see it could have religious value. If I want to cause a debate as a religious commentator or polemicist and I say that what the prophet Mohammed said in the Koran is not conducive to the common good because it could be read in a violent way, I need protection in the expression of that view although it is not a political view. If I say that the Koran leads people away from God, that is a religious view, it is not political, scientific, academic or literary but the protection is still deserved.
The Danish cartoons controversy offers an example of the sorts of problems this section will bring about if it is left unamended. During that controversy the assertion was made that some sections of Islam regard it as blasphemy to depict the prophet Mohammed. If that view was to enjoy the protection of the law it would be excessive. Imagine a history teacher who produces a book illustrating the history of religions and just as he might try to illustrate Jesus Christ, he might try to illustrate Mohammed, in a respectful way but depicting him nonetheless. Mohammed belongs to all of us if he is a historical figure. He is part of the human heritage and, as such, a person producing a history book for children is entitled to depict him and must enjoy the protection of the law in so doing.
Suppose it is not an academic publication, suppose it is for Sunday school. In those circumstances that person might not enjoy protection because he can foresee the depiction of the prophet will cause offence and therefore he may be held to intend it. The Minister must protect the person who wants to express a view that is purely religious, uttered in good faith, not desiring in an aggressive way to be offensive but intending to be offensive in that he understands that the natural and probable consequences of his action in expressing the idea is that it will give offence. Given that the Minister requires a section to give further strength to the limitation entailed in subsection (2)(b), if he is a reasonable man, he must extend this protection to ministers of religion if he is going to give it to other sections of society. Otherwise the Minister will also be guilty of aggressive secularism.
Senator Ivana Bacik: Does Senator Mullen ever use the word "secularism" without placing the word "aggressive" in front of it?
Senator Rónán Mullen: I am using that phrase because it was popularised by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, who referred to "aggressive secularism" as part of a doctrinaire anti-religious approach that informed certain political views within society.
Senator David Norris: He was a very holy person, as we all know, a very ethical man, although not very good with money, as far as I remember.
Senator Rónán Mullen: I am reminded of the phrase "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone".
Senator David Norris: I am terrible with money and I am not great with the auld ethics either.
Senator Rónán Mullen: That is why I do not throw stones, I have too many sins. That is why I use the phrase "aggressive secularism", because there is a tendency in legislation to fail to vindicate-----
Senator David Norris: The Senator has chased the Minister from the House.
Senator Ivana Bacik: It is nothing personal.
Senator Rónán Mullen: The Minister of State has not had the benefit of hearing my lengthy contribution.
Deputy Barry Andrews: I heard it in my office. Everyone is listening to the Senator.
Senator Rónán Mullen: I pity them all the more. I ask the Minister of State to give serious consideration to making the necessary change here, otherwise I will introduce an amendment on Fifth Stage.
Senator David Norris: I regret that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has been driven into retreat but I welcome the Minister of State to the House.
This is a matter of the freedom of speech. One of the principal motivators of artists over the years has been pour épater les bourgeois, to shock the middle classes. That is a very worthy aim. On introducing the amendment referred to by Senator Mullen, I completely oppose that, not that I am an atheist or a militantly aggressive secularist but because I am very familiar with God. He is a nice old Jewish gentleman with a long, white beard. I frequently converse with him and I find our conversations extraordinarily interesting. In view of his extreme age, however, I would be concerned that he might be the victim of friendly fire if there was an outbreak of bible throwing between different religious sects. Who knows what might happen? I am concerned for the preservation of the welfare of this elderly gentleman.
Senator Ivana Bacik: Or woman.
Senator David Norris: Or woman, but generally speaking the one I speak to is a gentleman.
Senator Rónán Mullen: The Senator is being sexist.
Senator David Norris: That is the tradition and the history of Senator Mullen's own sect.
Senator Rónán Mullen: Senator Norris is out of date theologically.
Senator David Norris: The Minister spoke about the urgent necessity for fixing this because there had been a case some time ago on blasphemy that was rather unusual and unlikely to be repeated. I do not believe the judges in that case directed the Oireachtas to make the changes the Minister is talking about. Even if they did, it is clear from a study of the record that this and many other Ministers have blithely ignored clear instructions from the High Court and the Supreme Court that legislation ought to be looked at and introduced to fill lacunae in the law. If I am correct, the X case is a glaring example of that but it is a hot potato and they do not want to touch it so they retreated into this notion of blasphemy.
Senator Ivana Bacik: Hear, hear.
Senator David Norris: There is such a thing as blasphemy, as I said on the Order of Business. Blasphemy was outlined by Mr. Michael O'Brien, when he talked about the treatment he suffered in an institution where he was beaten and raped and the next day the host was placed in his mouth by the same men.
That seems to be something that is blasphemous, being in defiance of the decency of God and man. In terms of literature, Ulysses by James Joyce, which was banned, would certainly be considered blasphemous under the terms we have been discussing in the House today. It contains prayers such as "Kidney of Bloom, pray for us" and the entire first section is a black Mass in its form. That would certainly raise some difficulties in terms of the reprinting of Joyce.
Some of this material is very offensive. I am not referring to Ulysses but to the kind of thing that occurred in Wexford some months ago - which I spoke out against in the House and on the radio - in which, for purposes of promotion, a disco owner organised the whipping of a partly clad male figure around the disco to the accompaniment of disco music in a reproduction of the Crucifixion. That is deeply offensive and utterly childish and disgusting. On that occasion, public opinion provided the appropriate corrective. That was partly because of comments made in this House, on the radio and by people in the local authority. There is a self-correction mechanism. I am not defending that kind of behaviour, which I think is abhorrent and repellent, but the correct mechanism for dealing with it is the process of public disapproval which can be expressed.
The Minister's heart appears not to be in it. He has said, as I mentioned on the Order of Business the other day, that this law was deliberately framed so that it could not be used. That unquestionably brings the law into disrepute and is the wrong approach. However, I understand it has a long tradition in the Minister's party. It smacks of the Haughey idea of an Irish solution to an Irish problem. I remember saying at that time that the notion of an Irish solution demeaned the Irish people and held them up to ridicule and contempt.
I have been quite close to a blasphemy prosecution. In the 1970s a newspaper with which I had some involvement, Gay News, was successfully prosecuted by Mary Whitehouse on foot of a poem by Professor James Kirkup about the Crucifixion. When I first read the poem myself I found it extremely shocking because it suggested that there was an erotic sexual focus between the figure of Christ on the cross and the Roman legionaries who were guarding him. It certainly caught my attention and disturbed me, but that was what it was intended to do. Nowadays in theology there is considerable discussion on profound issues of the relationship between the erotic and the spiritual and Kirkup's poem would be seen in that context. It was only a short poem on one page of a newspaper that took up about 20 pages, which was a lifeline for many people here because it contained interesting and useful news about legal advances, social events and so on. The issue was banned in England and we had great difficulty as a result. We had some discussions with the police because after that several editions were impounded, although only one edition had been banned, and the case was eventually appealed. Thus, the issue is not entirely a dead letter.
There is a long tradition of opposition to this form of censorship, which is dangerous in terms of both religious thought and literary experiment. The Earl of Chesterfield, in 1749, in the preface to a pamphlet which reproduced his speech in the House of Lords against the proposed Licensing Act which introduced the requirement for stage performances in the UK to be licensed by the Lord Chamberlain, wrote:
As we trace the genius of a nation by their taste in poetry and music, so by their encouragement of these we may judge of their rise or fall; good authors have never been wanting in happy climes. Barbarism begins her reign by banishing the Muses. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear!
I am grateful to Fintan O'Toole of The Irish Times for drawing my the attention and that of other members of the public to the fact that it is almost exactly 100 years since the celebrated controversy about a play called "The Shewing-up of Blanco Posnet" by the late George Bernard Shaw. Shaw wrote the play deliberately and fomented a controversy precisely to focus the public's attention on the issue of censorship, especially as it related to blasphemy. It was refused a licence for performance by the British censor, which was exactly what Shaw wanted. He managed to provoke a parliamentary select committee of inquiry into the matter at which he said, when summoned to appear before it: "I think that the danger of crippling thought, the danger of obstructing the formation of the public mind by specially suppressing such representations is far greater than any real danger there is from such representations." He continued:
I am not an ordinary playwright in general practice. I am a specialist in immoral and heretical plays. My reputation has been gained by my persistent struggle to force the public to reconsider its morals. In particular, I regard much current morality as to economic and sexual relations as disastrously wrong; and I regard certain doctrines of the Christian religion as understood in England today with abhorrence. I write plays with the deliberate object of converting the nation to my opinions in these matters.
In Britain the play was suppressed. Shaw brought the project to Ireland and submitted it to the Abbey Theatre. Yeats and Lady Gregory took it up with alacrity and the play opened in August 1909, almost 100 years ago.
An Cathaoirleach: This is very much like a Second Stage speech.
Senator David Norris: Well, the Cathaoirleach has just listened to about six of them. I am sure he would not want to censor me because there would be the most ungodly row if that was attempted.
An Cathaoirleach: On the amendment, Senator.
Deputy Barry Andrews: I think it was meant as a compliment.
Senator David Norris: I do apologise, a Chathaoirligh. Thank you so much for your kind remarks. Please shower me with them as much as you can. I am giving clear and historically referenced reasons for my position on this.
The only complaint from the audience about Shaw's play, when shown in the Abbey Theatre, was that it was not half hot enough. No one was actually offended.
There was an interesting piece in the Irish Examiner a while ago whose headline was "Sinister blasphemy law would play into the hands of religious nut cases". It continued:
If Jesus were in Ireland today, under the new law, wouldn’t he be one of its first victims, held in Portlaoise, perhaps, while lawyers debated whether he should be deported to Israel, or the Palestinian Authority, or tried here? Muslims might find their mosques under close inspection, too.
The question raised, which the Minister has not answered, was that of a concrete example of the kind of blasphemy intended to be cured by this law. My colleague, Senator Mullen, provided a couple of examples, which I challenged. The Minister was not present at the time and he might like to be aware of this. I will paraphrase one example and I am sure Senator Mullen will correct me if I am incorrect. He thought there should be a law dealing with somebody who outrageously stood outside a mosque and said something along the lines of the Holocaust being a good thing. That is roughly what was said. The other example he gave was obnoxious treatment of the Host at the Eucharist.
Senator Rónán Mullen: I did not give either of those examples, but they appear persuasive.
Senator David Norris: They were the ones I remember him giving. Perhaps it was, as I suspected, a malign fantasy as a result of my eating cheese. I made the point at that stage that both of those were dealt with by other laws, for example, those pertaining to conduct likely to provoke a breach of the peace, public disorder or similar. Thus, they are already covered.
In other jurisdictions, of course, blasphemy is much more of a live concept. Quite recently the Pakistani Supreme Court upheld a judgment that only death was the appropriate punishment for blasphemy.

The journalist Sayed Pervis Kambaksh received such a sentence last year. He distributed a pamphlet commenting in a critical way on the status of women within Islam. In Sudan a British teacher who was in charge of a school allowed a child to call a teddy bear Mohammed. She got into severe trouble and had to be recused by diplomatic intervention. This is where blasphemy can lead if we are not careful.
Senator Mullen and others raised, at some length and very interestingly, the question of freedom of speech and I wish to talk about it while my secretary is answering her telephone.
Senator Rónán Mullen: Sexist outrage number two today.
Senator Ivana Bacik: Or his telephone.
Senator David Norris: I thought it was Violet, but it is actually Senator O'Toole.
The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.
Article 19 of it considers freedom of expression as a cornerstone right and something that enables all the other rights to be articulated, protected and exercised, and that the full enjoyment of the right of freedom of expression is to the enjoyment of those rights, but does provide for restrictions.
The restrictions are provided to protect the rights of others and public order, in so far as is necessary for a democratic society. This is the point Senator Mullen made. However, there is a three part test, a point Senator Mullen did not put on the record. For the test to be legitimate, all three parts must be satisfied. A restriction must pursue the legitimate aim it claims to pursue. Therefore, there is no point in writing a pornographically blasphemous novel simply to aggravate people and then pretending it is a work of art. The restriction must also be imposed in a democratic framework by Parliament or pursuant to powers granted by it. The last provision is where a test could be applied to this Bill, and by which it would fail. The restriction must be necessary in a democratic society, and the term "necessary" must be taken quite literally and means the restriction must not be merely useful or reasonable. The Minister suggested the re-introduction of the offence of blasphemy is useful. From his point of view politically it may well be. However, he has certainly demonstrated that it is unnecessary, and for that reason it fails the test of the fundamental document guaranteeing freedom of rights.
There is an obligation with regard to blasphemy laws on all member states and the United Nations to take measures to promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language and religion. There is no denial that certain forms of expression can threaten the dignity of targeted individuals and create an environment in which the enjoyment of equality is not possible, which introduced the notion of hate crimes and so on. There is no effective hate crime legislation in this country. I have tried, on several occasions, to initiate it and have never been able to. It might as well not exist and is a dead letter.
Article 19 recognises that reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression may be necessary to prevent advocacy of hatred but are not required to introduce legislation on blasphemy. Several established democracies still have blasphemy provisions on their statute books, but they are rarely, if ever, used. I understand the United Kingdom has recently reversed its legislation. There have only been two prosecutions since 1932 in the UK, one of which I have dealt with already. Norway had its last case in 1936 and Denmark in 1938. Other countries, including Sweden, Spain and the UK, have repealed their blasphemy laws. In the United States, which is frequently used as a persuasive precedent in legal cases in Ireland, the Supreme Court steadfastly strikes down any legislation prohibiting blasphemy for fear that even well-meaning censors would be tempted to favour one religion over another, and because it was not the business of government to suppress real or imagined attacks on particular religious doctrines.
Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that the right to freedom of religion is, under international standards, better served or religious ideas protected through blasphemy laws. Under international human rights law freedom of religion, for instance, is not about respecting a religion, but about respecting peoples' right to practice. The practice and not the religion is protected. I agree with that. Do offensive statements threaten the ability of adherents to religion to exercise and express their own beliefs? I do not think so. I do not think it is appropriate to introduce legislation merely to protect the sensitivities of people who might be offended.
Senator Bacik referred to communication from Atheists Ireland. I welcome the presence in the Gallery of the prophet Michael Nugent. I am in receipt of correspondence from him in which he makes a number of very serious points about the problematic behaviour indicated in the Bill regarding outrage and not the expression of a different belief, which is wrong. He makes the point that we should not be incentivising outrage and encouraging people to be outraged, because people will take the slightest hint. Look at Princess Diana's funeral, where people who had no inkling of her human reality were gushing tears.
Senator Rónán Mullen: What about the Joe Duffy show?
Senator David Norris: One can act as a catalyst for all kinds of odd emotions.
In 2005, Greek courts found a book of cartoons to be blasphemous and issued a European arrest warrant for the Austrian cartoonist who drew them. This point is important because the court issued an international warrant which could only be effected where there is a parallel offence. We are creating a parallel offence in this country. We might be initiating a situation where Irish citizens will be exposed to risk from other courts, which is highly dangerous.
The prophet Michael Nugent is the author of an entirely new religion and expects it to be protected from blasphemy. I regret the absence of the Minister, Deputy Ahern, because he would be very pleased to learn he is at the centre of this new devotion. It is called the "Church of Dermotology" and it believes ice-cream wafers are literally the body of the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and will issue fatwas against cartoonists who publish cartoons of him. It is a development which is to be very much welcomed.
I have a comment of some substance on the precise wording of amendment No. 29. It reduces the fine to €25,000, which shows a certain degree of nervousness on the part of the Minister. The amendment refers to matter that is grossly abusive or insulting to things held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage. Subsection(4) refers to the idea of religion and gives a partial definition of it. In this section religion does not include an organisation or cult, the principle object of which is to make a profit. That covers just about every religion. I am a church-going member of the Church of Ireland, but it is an undeniable fact that churches make profits and it gets worse the closer one gets to the United States of America.
Another point on subsection(4) is that an organisation that employs oppressive psychological manipulation of its followers or for the purpose of gaining new followers is not described as a religion. I would be very concerned about this if I were a member of the majority church. I am not unsympathetic towards it but I am not keen on some of its leaders.
Senator Rónán Mullen: Or its teachings.
Senator David Norris: Many of its teachings are alright, except for the odd neurosis about sexuality, which it holds in common with all churches and most religions, so I do not condemn it uniquely.
Senator Rónán Mullen: They are all equally wrong.
Senator David Norris: Exactly. No, no.
Senator Rónán Mullen: Nein.
Senator David Norris: Nein, nein. Or even 666. This is a serious point.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is it related to the amendments?
Senator David Norris: I want to show where this could lead. I am a great admirer of Fr. Brian D'Arcy. He has done enormously important work as a broadcaster and writer and has held out a lifeline to people whose lives have been fractured by personal circumstances of one kind or another. He is also a man I genuinely admire intensely. Fr. D'Arcy has the courage of his convictions and, in a gentlemanly way, challenged the senior authorities of his own church, including on television, which is extremely courageous. While I do not wish to embroil him in further controversy, he has published a book which I have been reading because I am interviewing him on Monday.
In the book, A Different Journey, Fr. D'Arcy describes his formation in a monastery near Enniskillen as follows:
There wasn't much formal education involved, except perhaps in spiritual practices: how to meditate, be silent and repeat endless rosaries. We memorised the monk's alphabet, which had quotes like, "I am a worm and no man". It was about killing your self-esteem, even though most of us hadn't much of it to kill...
Each of us had five whips about four inches long of this tightly knitted twine with a rope handle long enough to make sure you could beat your backside. After night prayers, three times a week, we went to our rooms and whipped ourselves on the bum for as long as it took to say five Our Fathers, five Hail Marys and five Glorias.
There was, Father D'Arcy writes, hardly any spirituality taught and most of the practices were designed to encourage blind obedience rather than an interior life of genuine holiness. He also describes a notorious case of a novice master telling a novice from a farming background to plant cabbages upside down. While the novice knew it was wrong, he did as he was told out of blind obedience. "Humiliations like that destroyed good young men", Fr. D'Arcy adds.
I do not refer to these passages to be provocative, nor do I wish to insult the Roman Catholic Church. The test of the greatness of the church is that a good and decent man such as Fr. D'Arcy survived these silly, dangerous practices and still does extremely good work. The definition of a cult provided in the legislation exactly coincides with the witness of a continuing priest of the Roman Catholic religion. This is the area into which the Minister is foolishly straying. It is for this reason that I support Senator Regan's amendment to delete the section.

Order of Business - 9th July 2009

Order of Business - 9th July 2009

Senator David Norris: I join colleagues in asking for the Minister for Health and Children to come to the House to discuss the pharmacy issue. I am once again in receipt of very detailed e-mails quoting facts and figures from pharmacies, principally small pharmacies throughout the country. I have no sympathy for the international chains. The Minister is partly responsible, through legislation, for introducing a two-tier system in pharmacy as well as in medicine. What about the pharmacies in rural areas and in working class suburbs? The countryside is already largely deprived of post offices, buses and pubs. Now the chemists may fizzle out. We need to review the issue.
The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill will come to this House next week, which will be absolutely useless because no amendments will be taken. In the aftermath of the Phoenix Park murders by the Invincibles at the end of the 19th century, an attempt was made in Britain to introduce just such a law and the Lord Chief Justice, Baron Pallas, said that any attempt to impose upon the duty of trying crime without juries would impair confidence in justice.
I listened to the news this morning. In a case in Limerick, Gary Campion has just been sentenced. This was adduced as evidence to show why this Bill is necessary. It is completely the reverse. Mr. Campion was rightly convicted by a jury in Limerick. We are talking about getting rid of juries. This is a fundamental strike at human rights. We really need to discuss it properly. Everyone is opposed to this kind of criminal warfare. Those involved are a real blot on society and people rightly despise them. They hold people up to terror, but we must use a surgical approach to them. There is no point in using hysteria as a cloak for diminishing human rights. Let us have a proper debate and not have all these irrelevancies.

Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009 - Report and Final Stages - 8th July 2009

Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009 - Report and Final Stages - 8th July 2009.
Senator David Norris: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this legislation, on which I also contributed on Second Stage. I mention in the presence of the senior Minister that the legislation appears principally to be a response to the McCann judgment. I recognise also that Ms Justice Laffoy issued a very good judgment in the case. I wish to put at the centre of this debate the human experience of the debtor. The Minister should note that many Senators greatly appreciate the work of the Northside Community Law Centre, without which the McCann case may not have reached a satisfactory conclusion.
While I compliment the Minister on having responded to the McCann case, as I stated on Second Stage, he has responded to half of the problem rather than the full problem. This may well be the reason my colleague, Senator Walsh, asked Senators to wait for the report of the Law Reform Commission. Different Governments have frequently asked us to wait for this or that report to be published. Unfortunately, I have always found this approach to be rather haphazard.
Senator Regan's amendment is considered and detailed but also clear and efficient. It is interesting to note that it is almost exactly the same length as the Bill, which tells us something about the degree of concern and interest the Senator has devoted to the matter. I am fully in favour of the idea of attachment and urge the Minister, even at this late stage, to take the matter on board.
The whole point of the McCann judgment was to avoid circumstances in which citizens are sent to jail. The amendment appears to be another mechanism, in this case an efficient one, to ensure that with regard to debt, a citizen is not needlessly sent to jail for a non-violent crime which, while possibly aggravating and financially dangerous for the other side, is not a crime of violence. Why should the taxpayer have to pay to keep people in jail over debts, some of which are for small sums? The attachment of earnings procedure appears to be an efficient method to address this matter and it is one of which I approve.
The reason I commented on the length of the amendment and compared it with the length of the Bill was that any difficulties or concerns I had appear to have been met by Senator Regan. For example, I was concerned that a circumstance could arise in which a person's income was attached to such an extent that he or she would experience difficulty in meeting the requirements of life, including the education of his or her children and so forth. I note, however, that section 8(4)(b) of the amendment requires that the protected earnings rate must be specified so that the court will determine a level of income below which, as a result of the attachment order, the person in question should not have to pay.
I like the idea of consent in subsection (5) which states:
The particular of an attachment to earnings order may be agreed on consent by the debtor and the creditor in advance the hearing of an application under this section and may be ruled on by the Court as an order under this section.
The phraseology "in advance the hearing" sounds a bit odd. Presumably it means "in advance of". Perhaps the Minister can advise as to whether a preposition was left out or if this is legal language. If it is, it is a bit odd considering that the Minister has committed himself to using ordinary language. There may well be a simple explanation and I see that the Minister's advisor is smiling.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: We did not draft it.

Senator David Norris: The Minister did not draft it. It was Senator Regan, the fausseur. Is the Minister disposed to accept this amendment? It is so good, I assumed it came from the Minister. However, I think the preposition has been left out. It looks to me almost like a conciliation process - the kind of thing that sometimes happens on the way into court when parties agree and no blood need actually be shed. I commend this amendment which is good and well thought out. The defence that the Government has offered for its apparent reluctance to accept it, seems principally to be that the Law Reform Commission may look at this in the future.
I think we are taking amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 together. Amendment No. 4 seems to be reasonable on the part of Senator Regan. It would be almost like a biblical parable if, for example, A was in debt to B, and C was in debt to A, and C was paying money to A, but A was refusing to pass it on to B. It would be aggravating for poor B to watch money flowing into the pockets of somebody who had already borrowed money from them. The amendment therefore seems to be perfectly reasonable. There is no reason why an ancillary debt of that nature should be protected.
Amendment No. 6 proposes to insert a new section 17A as follows:
All instalment orders made under the aforementioned section must be served, personally, on the judgment debtor and must contain a notification of the consequences of failure to comply with such an order...
It is a good legal principle that people must get direct and proper notification which must be served appropriately. I am very much in favour of this amendment. On Second Stage, I said the Minister was going excellently half the way, but Senator Regan has provided another 40% or 50%. I hope therefore that the Minister will consider these amendments positively.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): I thank Senators for acknowledging that we have put significant checks and balances in the Bill concerning the implications of the Laffoy judgment. In my 21 years as a practising solicitor, from 1976 to 1997, I had some practical experience of the use of instalment orders, garnishee orders and judgment mortgages, to try to use every trick in the legal book to get money or, as they say, blood out of a stone. It is a frustrating experience for somebody who is owed a debt to get money from people who wilfully refuse, even though they have the resources. When one gets the instalment order, people often say they will pay a fiver a month, that the person owed will never get the ultimate amount and that it will be made a painstaking experience. It is a frustrating experience for those who are owed money. It needs reform which is one of the reasons the Law Reform Commission was requested to review this matter.
I do not accept what Senator Norris says about the Government's attitude being haphazard. It is anything but haphazard in that we are taking a long-term look at it and are consulting with various people. The commission has already done some work, but will do a consultation process in September and will ultimately report on a complete reform of this area. I would welcome that. If we were to accept Senator Regan's amendment, we could be rightly accused of second guessing what the Law Reform Commission will ultimately report. It is important therefore to allow that consultation process to go ahead.
I have sympathy with the concept of attachment, which works pretty well with maintenance orders. It must be said, however, that 50% of those who end up in prison do so as a result of non-payment of maintenance orders, so the attachment was no good in those circumstances. There is a multiplicity of ways in which people can recover a debt. I am digressing a bit in telling the story of a case I took great pride in when I was a practising solicitor many years ago. It concerned an elderly couple who were badly assaulted by their next door neighbour in a row over a fence. The gardaí would not get involved, even though an assault took place, because it was one person's word against another. There was no criminal prosecution so we took a civil prosecution. This couple had been badly beaten. In the man's case we got £5,000 and £2,500 for the woman, which was a huge amount of money 20 years ago. We tried to go through the courts with instalment orders which we obtained, but it comes back to the central point. In my experience, and I think it would be the experience of most legal practitioners, the courts err on behalf of giving people their freedom. It is only when the creditor has gone to the nth degree that the debtor ends up in prison. In my recollection very few people were put in prison in my area during my time practising law. To come back to the story, I tried to get the money for these nice people who were from Canada but living locally in Dundalk at the time. We went though all these instalment proceedings but, of course, the fellow never paid. We probably did get a committal order against him but I do not think it was enforced. I took a personal interest in the case because I felt the man who assaulted the couple should not be let off. I therefore registered the judgment as a judgment mortgage against the assaulter's property. We left it there and did not apply for an order for sale, as one is entitled to do under a judgment mortgage. I thought no more about it and the people never got paid. Then about 15 years later I got a call from a local solicitor who was in the process of selling a house and was literally closing the deal that day. He did what are called the searches and, lo and behold, he came across this judgment mortgage which was registered against the property, as well as another mortgage with the building society. He could make neither head nor tail of this mortgage, but it transpired it was the mortgage I had registered on behalf of the people concerned. He obviously could not sell the house that particular day therefore. I then had to try to locate the people who had returned to Canada after the assault, without having received their money. Eventually we tracked them down and I was delighted to be able to tell them that they were going to get £7,500 plus interest at 11% for about 15 years. It was a lovely little box for them subsequently. I am digressing, but the story illustrates the difficulty a debtor must go through to get satisfaction.

Senator David Norris: It is a very good story, but I think it was the creditor.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: Did I say "debtor"? I meant to say "creditor". The 1940 Act is an old Act but we have put in a range of balanced safeguards and protections. We took into account what Senators said yesterday. We consulted the Attorney General on the safeguards and we are satisfied those built into the Bill are correct. We have gone further in the legislation in that no debtor can be imprisoned until the court has heard from him or her. If he or she refuses to attend, he or she obviously can be held in contempt under section 12. I understand from my officials that no Senator disagreed with the fact that this is a necessary provision. The High Court also stated that it was necessary that the debtor be apprised by the judge of his or her entitlement to legal representation. This is fully accounted for in the point.
Ms Justice Laffoy's final point was that the court "applies fair procedures in the hearings of the creditor's application, and does not make an order for arrest or imprisonment, unless it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect." This is extensively addressed in the Bill which provides that the debtor must be informed in the summons, which will be personally served if possible. We are again nodding in the direction of an amendment by Senator White on the consequences of that process. The debtor must be brought before the court to be further informed by the judge of his or her rights, including legal aid and the possible consequences. The Bill goes further still, by listing a range of options that are open to the judge, including the making of a variation order, requiring the parties to participate in mediation.
The money advice and budgeting service was referred to in the House. In my time as Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs between 1997 and 2000, I was very instrumental in building up that service to what it is today. When I started in public life, the ESB used to switch people off. That does not happen anymore because MABS is there for everyone, and it is an excellent service.
I accept what Senator Bacik said about the lady in question. The couple in my case own the house, and judgment mortgages do not apply to people in local authority houses. I appreciate that there are people who do not have the resources and perhaps do not have the legal advice. Perhaps they have a health issue which may prevent them from getting that advice. My experience has been that the courts have erred very much on the side of caution in this respect.
We have addressed an urgent need that was identified by the High Court decision. It does not deal ultimately with the overall process, which may very well be radically overhauled by the Law Reform Commission when it comes to give a view on this. I would recognise that the Government would be more than willing to do away with or change the existing system if that is what was recommended. We should give a chance to the Law Reform Commission to bring forward its recommendations. Approximately half of those imprisoned at any given time are maintenance debtors where there is already an option of attachment. It seems this is not the complete panacea to all the ills associated with the issue.
I thank Senator Regan for tabling this amendment and for highlighting the necessity to have an attachment of earnings, but I suggest we leave it until the Law Reform Commission has reported.


Senator David Norris: I add my voice to that of Senator Bacik. I compliment her on getting this amendment passed. On behalf of the House, I thank the Minister for showing this degree of flexibility. It is a very important point, which a number of us made on Second Stage. Senator Bacik put the amendment down, argued very clearly for it and, obviously, impressed the Minister and his advisers. It strengthens the Bill, democratises it and allows the debtor to fully participate in the process in a way which can only be positive for the whole outcome.
Senator Bacik emphasised many of the legal and human aspects, but I would like to emphasise the ordinary language aspect. That is terribly important because it is by virtue of the ordinary language that this information becomes accessible, and it is usable only when it is accessible. If it is wrapped in legal jargon one can print it on note paper, send it through the letter box or read it out to the people, but it will not make the slightest difference. It must be accessible and that permits the citizen to exercise his or her rights.
I endorse what Senator Bacik said about prison. It is futile. It is a waste of time, money and effort sending people in such civil cases to jail. It is not at all worthwhile and I look forward to the time when the only people in jail will be those who are a danger to themselves or society in some really practical way. Although this is not the time to discuss them, there are many other ways people can be encouraged to pay off their debts to society, such as community service orders, but sending people to jail is very foolish.
The Minister said very few are jailed, but there are many more than one might imagine. There were approximately 200 last year. That is quite a large number of people affected by this. A large number of people are being put in jail for non-payment of television licences, and that is completely daft. That is one of the reasons I welcome this, and I hope they will be covered by it. I raised it under the Broadcasting Bill and was told it was an inappropriate location.
I support Senator Bacik. I am very glad the Minister accepted the amendment. I congratulate her. This is what the Seanad is for. The fact that this was done overnight shows how much more we could do with these Bills if they were not galloped through the Seanad.

Order of Business - 8th July 2009

Order of Business - 8th July 2009
Senator David Norris: I deeply dislike elections, which are a horrible experience for politicians. I have never called for one before, but we need one now because of the disgraceful behaviour of the Government and the way in which it is treating this Parliament. We are moving away from a democracy and towards a Stalinist era of closed courts in which people cannot be represented and which they must attend on the word of a junior garda. I did not think I would ever come across this. Politicians are being frightened and bullied by radio programmes and by the Minister out of saying they are against the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill. Everybody is saying they support the Bill but I am against it because of its utter violation of decent democratic principles. It will be condemned by the United Nations.
It is time this Government realised that trial by jury is not just the name of an operetta by Gilbert and Sullivan. It is a fundamental principle of our democracy. A total of 130 lawyers, from both the prosecution and defence sides, have signed a letter to a leading newspaper demanding that the Bill be withdrawn. Passing the Bill in the House next week is a total and utter meaningless farce as no amendments can be accepted. We are just wasting our time. The leading criminal judge has said there is no difficulty with impanelling witnesses.
With the greatest respect, I must also object to the mentioning of irrelevancies. I am a great admirer of Senator Fitzgerald, but the fact that under age children are being used as couriers has nothing to do with this. I understand why she said it because we are all worried, but we cannot allow our genuine worry to blur the fact that we must focus on the fundamental constitutionality of this Bill. The Government should go as it has disgraced itself again. I hope the President will refer the Bill to the Supreme Court.

Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009 - Second Stage Debate - 7th July 2009

Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009 -Second Stage Debate - 7th July 2009^

Senator David Norris: I welcome the Bill. However, I deplore the fact that the Minister of State, who is a decent man, is complicit in undermining the constitutional role of the Seanad, since we will not have proper time to investigate this issue fully and table appropriate amendments. I shall not go on about this, though, because it means I would be wasting my time.
This needed to be addressed for a very long time. The House will know that I have tried various methods to attack the situation whereby people were being put in jail for debt. For example, on the Broadcasting Bill I said - the then Minister of State in charge agreed - that it was appalling that people were being put in jail on a regular basis, including a woman in Cork with a family of young children, on the basis of non-payment of a television licence. The Minister of State then indicated that this Bill would be brought before the House and that it was more appropriate to deal with this type of question here.
I was surprised to have been the only Member of the Oireachtas to attend a very good briefing by FLAC. I commend the Free Legal Aid Service and I know some of its representatives are in the House today. It performed a very useful service by giving detailed and clear briefings to all of us. There may be many reasons why my colleagues could not attend, and I am aware they were circulated with the brief, which in some ways is just as good. However, by not being there they missed part of the human face. It was very striking to listen to the calm and dignified story of Ms Mary Coughlan, a remarkable artist. She spoke about her experience as an artist because the entertainment business suffers a series of fluctuations and people are not always careful. We know of so many tragic stories in show business, where people do not always read the small print in the legal documentation.
Ms Coughlan signed something quite blissfully having made, as she said, a transmission almost instantly from very poor rental accommodation to a magnificent palatial house in Baily, with tennis courts and all the rest until suddenly, one day, two years into her enjoyment of these premises, she found herself in debt. Suddenly there were bailiffs and she was threatened with jail. Only the intervention of Sir Richard Branson, who was on the point of signing her for a major record deal, saved her. He managed to negotiate with the bank, and she was very happy to give the name, National Irish Bank. One has only to look at the way NIB operated so disgracefully itself, so shame on it for pursuing someone such as that. The interesting point is that Ms Coughlan had neither the competence nor the muscle to extricate herself from this situation. Sir Richard Branson did and managed to negotiate what amounted to a 50% deal. He paid off half the debt and that excused the entire deal, but Ms Coughlan is still left with the aftermath because her credit rating is gone. She is paying €1,800 a month rent on a three-bedroomed house in Bray, which is significantly less than the mortgage she would be paying on a proper house for her family, with all the amenities. No bank will give her the money, however, because her credit rating is gone. That is an appalling situation and I hope this will be taken into consideration as well.
Much of this legislation was spurred by the McCann case in the High Court, as the Minister of State indicated in his speech. I commend not alone the principle in this case but also the Northside Community Law Centre. It was only with the law centre's assistance that this remarkable and courageous woman was able to take her case.
The legislation is clearly intended to remedy some of the defects highlighted by the McCann case. Unfortunately, however, although the changes are welcome, they only really look at the last step in what FLAC describes as the complex and less than user-friendly procedure that takes place in open court and is need of comprehensive reform generally. I say to the Minister of State that the first step is very good, but we need an urgent and more comprehensive review of the entire situation. I recommend to his attention, as I am sure others have, the very detailed submission by FLAC, called "To No One's Credit".
The changes in the Bill will mean that in some circumstances it will put an end to the imprisonment of a debtor in his or her absence from the court. That was an appalling business. However, the Government with the other hand is creating a situation with the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill where exactly that can happen, so there is an incoherence in its approach. The onus of proof is being altered so that it is now up to the creditor to establish the debtor's failure. In other words, it is important that guilt is no longer assumed on the part of the debtor. The Bill provides for some degree of legal aid. Section 2 sets out to amend section 6 of the Enforcement of Court Orders Act 1940 and the intention is that a debtor will be obliged or encouraged to attend the court etc.
Since there is so little time, it would be helpful if, because under this new legislation the judge is capable of varying an instalment order, there should be a clear statement to the effect that a debtor "may" seek such a variation. This should be made clear to debtors at all times, but in the Bill this does not necessarily happen. However, I very much welcome the fact the intention in law is to ensure people are informed of the situation in clear and ordinary language. Subsection 6(3) empowers the District Court judge, where the debtor fails to attend, to issue a warrant. Again we have one of these classic "may" versus "shall" situations and perhaps my colleagues have spoken on this. However, this is a dangerous area and I appeal to the Minister of State to examine and amend it.
I do not know whether the appalling manner in which business is handled in this House means that this cannot necessarily be amended here. Nonetheless, I ask the Minister of State to introduce an amendment because the consequences could be very serious. If the judge "may" do something, that implies, linguistically, that he or she may not do it. If neither of these options is exercised, then it appears the debtor could still be imprisoned or an order could be sought to that end.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris's time is up.
Senator David Norris: I will end on this point. Although the judge may decide again to vary the instalment order at the resumed hearing, no specific obligation is imposed on the judge at the outset to inform the debtor that he or she may seek a variation of the hearing. The Cathaoirleach's bell is not quite in rhythm with the prose.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator's time is up, rhythm or no rhythm.
Senator David Norris: This would be a helpful reminder for many debtors. I am doing the vocals, and the Cathaoirleach is doing the drumming.

Order of Business - 7th July 2009

Order of Business - 7th July 2009
Senator David Norris: I join colleagues in calling for a debate on the impact on the economy of the disastrous strike by electricians. It seems there is an outbreak of catastrophic idiocy on both sides and a complete lack of understanding of the serious situation the nation faces. It is almost as if warfare broke out on the Titanic between the sailors and the orchestra over possession of the lifeboats while passengers were left to drown. It is time for the Government to intervene in this deplorable situation in whatever positive way it can.
I agree with Senator Fitzgerald and others who complained about the ordering of business in this House. We never seem to know on which days we will meet, for what hours and what we will discuss.
Senator Donie Cassidy: That is very unfair.
Senator David Norris: With the greatest respect to the Leader's diplomatic skills, on which Senator Mullen discoursed so liberally, this uncertainty leaves us somewhat bemused. The attitude towards the allocation of time for some of the extremely serious legislation which we will debate this week and next amounts to mere window dressing. As I said last week, the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009 is probably unconstitutional and certainly infringes the human and civil rights of the general population. I applaud the Irish Council for Civil Liberties which has done us a great favour in the analysis it has provided, despite being the subject of general attack on the airwaves.
The way in which this important legislation is being dealt with is entirely unacceptable. It will be guillotined in the Dáil, which means amendments will not be reached and Government amendments will automatically be passed. We are wasting our breath debating it in this House next week because the Dáil will have risen by that stage. There is absolutely no possibility of any amendments we may table being accepted. Therefore, there is no point in being here for that debate. As such, I suggest that Opposition Members absent themselves and let the Government get on with it, which may render the Bill unconstitutional. I hope these benches will be empty next week to highlight this scandal.

Order of Business - 3rd July 2009

Order of Business - 3rd July 2009

Senator David Norris: Earlier this morning a press conference and briefing was held by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties on the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill. I was the only Member of the Oireachtas who attended, which is a pity. I hope Members will take the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the brief that has been made available to them on this important matter. What is happening is extremely dangerous. Senator Alex White is 100% right. It is proposed that people can be convicted on the word of a garda and that they can be detained and their detention continued as a result of an ex parte application. In other words, they are not necessarily informed and are not represented. The Bill proposes that applications for warrants must be heard in secret, regardless of whether the judge or the Garda want this. This type of legislation was thrown out by the House of Lords. One of the noble lords in Westminster said that the threat to democracy comes not from terrorism or gangsterism but from this type of law. Similar provisions were thrown out by a committee of the Houses after the Hederman report because they are a violation of democracy. It is very dangerous to rush such measures through, with a guillotine imposed in the other House and probably no proper discussion of them in this House. I hope the Leader will make provision to deal with this.
Could the Leader approach the appropriate Minister and ask that the voluntary standards industry is supposed to observe in manufacturing venetian blinds be made mandatory? There was a tragic case before the coroner's court recently regarding a young boy who was strangled. His family was very caring and obviously took good care of the child but it was a dreadful occurrence. There has been a number of these cases. This tragedy could have been avoided by a fairly simple modification but it was not made. We cannot leave it to the manufacturers to do this. The jury asked us to attend to these matters.
Judges frequently make recommendations or comment that it is a pity the Oireachtas has not taken a certain action, that it should have done something or that it was negligent in some regard. I believe it would be appropriate to establish a channel of information between the Judiciary and the Oireachtas so judges can send us such messages. The message recommending that we take certain action could be placed on the Order Paper under the heading, "Message from the Judiciary". I accept there is a separation of powers but this proposal would be important and healthy for democracy.

Local Government (Charges) Bill 2009 - Report and Final Stages - 2nd July 2009

Local Government (Charges) Bill 2009 - Report and Final Stages - 2nd July 2009
Senator David Norris: Senators Coffey and Buttimer are correct that it is a question of definition. I strongly support the intention of the amendment and believe the Minister does also. I heard him on the radio deploring the fact that what he had regarded as a positive engagement with the Seanad and his preparedness to accept amendments was, to a certain extent, turned into a political football. He was accused of U-turns and so forth. This kind of commentary is unnecessary and I am glad it did not happen in Seanad Éireann. The other House conducts its business according to its own rules. The Seanad wants to be as constructive as possible.
Granny flats are a comparatively recent phenomenon. My saying "recent" is a function of my age. Granny flats have featured in the past 30 or 40 years but were never heard of when I was really young. I have seen examples all over the place, including very luxurious accommodation attaching itself to dwellings in the Ailesbury Road area, with which I am glad to say I was once familiar. The scent of mown hay or grass in a well-cultivated front garden in the suburbs on evenings such as these causes a kind of Proustian flashback. Granny flats range from those kinds of luxurious accommodations to others in more humble areas of the city or less refined suburbs, where I have also lived. They were basically converted garages.
The phenomenon of having granny flats was socially very positive because it held the generations together and meant that elderly parents, rather than going into a nursing home, could be afforded the comfort of proximity to their relatives. They had a degree of independence, which is so important psychologically in every way. At the same time, they benefited from the care of, and a relationship with, their children and, perhaps, grandchildren. This is socially very constructive.
The difficultly with the amendment is that it is not focused sufficiently. Will this Bill be returning to the Dáil?
Deputy John Gormley: Yes.
Senator David Norris: The Minister might consider this area and come up with a focused measure. According to the amendment, it seems a dwelling does not even have to be attached to the main house. It would be inappropriate if very wealthy people with very wealthy parents did not have to pay just because those parents lived in a structure that had been transferred to their children by gift of deed, for example. A sum of €200 is fairly modest. The amendment is so broad that it fails to achieve its intention, with which I hope the Minister agrees. I imagine he might do so. If I were him, I would not allow myself to be intimidated or bullied out of accepting the principle of a good amendment simply because some less enlightened people in the Lower House would make a mockery of it because of his having done the right thing. If one does the right thing, it has its own reward. The intention of the amendment is very good but its scope is just too broad.


Senator David Norris: I thank the Minister and his officials for the courteous way in which they dealt with this matter in the House. The civilised exchanges that took place in the Seanad give reasonable justification for why it is worthwhile continuing with this branch of the Oireachtas. I welcome the fact that the Minister accepted, at least in spirit, a number of the amendments that were proposed and argued strongly for in the House.

Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009

Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State. This is one of a flurry of Bills arriving in the House. In this area, we sometimes get miscellaneous provisions Bills, such as the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. There is an outbreak of miscellaneous provisions Bills. It is rather a pity that there is such a rag-bag approach because the Bill before us contains important elements, some of which I welcome and others I will probe further.
The Minister of State used the word "rationalisation" repeatedly. I hope it will be rationalisation in the full sense as opposed to just a mathematical division. I note her comment that, following the efficiency review of various agencies, "the Government agreed a process of rationalisation of State agencies" and that, in the health sector, "the number of agencies is being reduced from 34 to 18". That cut of 50% will be admirable if it is accompanied by real rationalisation, namely, retaining appropriate staff, preventing damage to the professional relationships within the area and, most crucially, maintaining delivery of service to the public. I would like to believe this will be the case.
The Minister of State referred to the integration of the National Council on Ageing and Older People and the Women's Health Council within the Department. I take it that they will be individually integrated as opposed to being merged, which would not be rational. Speaking as a 65 year old pseudo-male, there are also elderly male persons.

Senator Liam Twomey: What does the Senator mean by "pseudo"?

Senator David Norris: I am not claiming total macho credits. As a matter of principle, the rationalisation should be rational and should have full intellectual justification unlike the Government's decentralisation programme, which is really a disintegration programme, in that people were moved inappropriately and some valuable skills were lost. It is important we retain the most significant skills.
I am concerned about some aspects of the Bill. For example, the Drug Treatment Centre Board was mentioned. We all know that cities such as Dublin are on the brink of another heroin epidemic, yet there does not even seem to be enough money to cope with the current situation. The street prices of heroin and other opiates are decreasing. We are in a serious economic crisis and it is inappropriate for people such as me to keep telling the Government that it must spend more money here and cut money somewhere else, but mere economising would worry me.
My colleague, Senator Feeney, referred to the question of people who are mentally ill. She referred to Sebastian Barry's remarkable novel. He started his writing career while he was a tenant in my basement in North Great George's Street. Simultaneously, Anne Enright was a tenant. I believe they both won the Booker Prize. Both the attic and the basement won the Booker Prize and I was the boring bit in the middle.
There is another book that has not been mentioned but which is at least as striking, namely, Bird's Nest Soup, the autobiography of a woman from County Westmeath called Hanna Greally. She was incarcerated because she was perceived as a little bit socially awkward by her family. She was kept in an institution for about 40 years but her human personality remained unfractured. A remarkable young doctor discovered the woman was totally sane and had just been institutionalised for social reasons. That is why I listened with some interest to the coy euphemisms employed by the Minister of State in her speech. She referred to persons who are acutely mentally ill and require admission to hospital but who are "unwilling to travel to hospital voluntarily". That is a very nice euphemistic phrase. The people are probably admitted kicking and screaming, with their foot up against the ambulance door in some cases. We therefore need to be absolutely realistic.
The Minister of State referred to "assisted admissions". I can imagine what the assistance consists of. She referred also to the use, where necessary, of "staff of the approved centre". She mentioned well-known recent proceedings in the High Court pertaining to the case of someone who did not like being "assisted voluntarily" in being admitted. The lady took a case and part of her case, focusing on the legal inadequacy of the admission process, concerned the fact that she was admitted with the assistance of some external agencies, in other words, hired help. I am not impugning these agencies as I am sure they may be very well qualified but the intriguing point was that the judge found in his ruling that the meaning of the term "member of staff" is confined to an individual and that a corporate entity such as an external agency could not be a member of staff. The Minister of State commented that this is a "narrow interpretation" of the term "staff of the approved centre". Narrow my fanny: it is perfectly obvious that the interpretation is correct. Anybody reading that would know perfectly well one cannot just define a franchise as a member of staff. It is not a member of staff and the judge was making a perfectly straightforward and obvious comment. It may be the case that there is room for external agencies but I caution against going too far, for financial reasons, in the direction of franchising and privatisation. The Americans have gone down that road in every area, from medical services to prison administration, with consequences that are not always humane.
It was very interesting that there were 2004 involuntary admissions in 2008, of which 604 were assisted. In other words, 604 of those admitted were resisting so vigorously that they had to be pushed in. We should obtain as much information as possible on this. It is very interesting that a cross-party group has been established on mental health. It met some days ago in the audiovisual room. We should investigate the matter because we do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Let me say a few words about the Crisis Pregnancy Agency, which emerged in troubled times after the decision on the X case. It is a very important institution. I said in a previous session of Parliament that I was a tutor in Trinity College for ten years. The university authorities were a bit anxious about me and concerned for the moral welfare of the students, with the result that I never had anything in trousers in my chamber of students. I got a collection of skirts - I got 80 female students, with not one man among them. They obviously believed I was such soiled goods that I would be non-judgmental. Once a year a young woman would come to me with a crisis pregnancy and I was able to tell her of the existence of non-directive counselling agencies. Of probably ten such women, one had an abortion. I am convinced this is because I was able to give the girls information dispassionately and access to a place where the hysteria would be removed, where the appropriate questions would be put to them and where arrangements would be made if they decided to have the child, although there would possibly be emotional consequences. It is essential that there is some advice available before and afterwards. This is really important, regardless of what people believe about abortion, which is always sad. Sometimes it may be the better of two options. It is terribly important that women have treatment, therapy or advice after termination.
I welcome the fact that the Crisis Pregnancy Agency has a non-directive approach. It cannot and does not recommend abortion to clients but can give information. The Minister of State should, for God's sake, maintain this position because it is the best way to reduce the number of abortions. There are puritan ideologues outside and within the Houses who are so extreme in their views on this subject that they would say one should not give out information on abortion. This is foolish and counterproductive because the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to allow people the dignity of having as much information as possible. The Crisis Pregnancy Agency has been able to produce figures showing this is the case.
The agency is mandated to reduce the number of crisis pregnancies and reduce the number of women choosing abortion as an outcome of pregnancy. Nothing is said about condemning abortion. The agency is also mandated to safeguard women's physical and mental health following termination of pregnancy. What progress has been achieved in this regard? There has been a decrease of 30%. This is not just vague waffle from a retired tutor from Trinity College because I refer to a fact, an actual percentage. The reduction is the result of giving information and of being adult and mature. There has been a 20% decrease in the number and rate of births to teenagers and a 43% decrease in the number of teenagers travelling from Ireland to the United Kingdom for an abortion. It is worthwhile pausing to thank the agency. It has done a remarkable service, not just to the women of Ireland but to the population as a whole. I hope the Government will continue to support the agency in every way.
The Crisis Pregnancy Agency has, in these very difficult times, managed to increase its contact hours and services to women, which I very much welcome. The Minister of State, I am sure, is familiar with the kind of brief I have received on the agency. The agency has a number of issues and targets. The targets include achieving better access to information on contraception and contraceptive services for those identified to be at special risk of crisis pregnancy and improving the standards and quality of contraceptive services. It is not just enough for one to have actual contraceptives as one needs to be given information on how precisely to use them. Not providing this information is the reason for the failure of some of them. Proper information, guidance and policies on human sexuality and relationships are required in schools. We have not progressed nearly far enough in this regard.
My briefing note states that the chairperson of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency is Katherine Bulbulia, who was a distinguished Member of this House but who is now no longer directly involved in party politics. It is very heartening to see that somebody of her calibre is chairperson. She was an excellent advocate for women's health in this House, as was my former colleague, Dr. Mary Henry. Ms Bulbulia is continuing her valuable work through this excellent agency. I urge the Minister to ensure the Government continues its support for this work.

Health Insurance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008 - Second Stage Debate - 2nd July 2009

Health Insurance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008 - Second Stage Debate - 2nd July 2009
Senator David Norris: Senator de Búrca's contribution has been one of the best I have heard. It was delivered at rapid fire speed and was most enlightening. I felt privileged to listen to it. I do not have the same command of the detail as she clearly has. I was very impressed by her contribution.
I could be wrong, but I imagine the chief instigator of the Bill was not the Minister of State. The Bill has the hallmark of campaigns waged for a long time by the Minister, Deputy Harney. I do not always agree with the Minister and would have liked to take a bit of a smack at her on the last "Questions and Answers" programme, but felt that would have been wrong because of it being the occasion of John Bowman's last show. It would have been rather puppish for me to take a swipe at Deputy Harney on it. She was making extraordinary claims such as that thanks to the Progressive Democrats and its policies, people could now walk in off the street and get a phone. Of course one can, but they are mobile phones. That overlooks the fact that Eircom is a complete and absolute shambles. Thank God we can get mobile phones and are not dependent on Eircom any more. The same is true with regard to Progressive Democrat policies on air transport. They made ducks and drakes out of Aer Lingus, but thank God it has survived. They rubbished Team Aer Lingus and many of its jobs have now moved to Zurich.
I am glad, because I like and respect the Minister, that I now have something on which I can agree with her in principle. I am interested in the philosophical context of the Bill because I do not believe in a two-tier system, but in access. There should be a more radical approach to health. We should have universal health care that is paid for by those who can afford it and that is subsidised by the State. I have no objection to paying the highest rate, which I do, and do not mind my contributions, even if they are increased, going into a nationalised health service and helping to bring in some other citizens. That is real solidarity.
Senator de Búrca referred to the Canadian system. I suggest we should also look at the Australian system, which was explained in general outline to me in the past few days. Under that system, everyone has access to health care, but the people with extra money can buy the frills. Everybody has universal access to beds, treatment and care etc. That is the way to do it. If we want to have a private area, it should be for the frills. I am already on plan E, but if there was a plan F, I would be on it. People in my situation need not be a burden and to be able to afford to look after themselves. Therefore, health insurance for me is a prudent investment.
I well recall how the private capitalist investors in people's illness challenged the risk equalisation scheme, which I supported, in court where it took a bit of a toss. The principle, however, survives and I am glad that the Minister of State referred to this. At the end of his speech he unobtrusively used the key phrase, "the common good", to which I would like all Departments to pay attention. My view, and that of many who are more expert in law, is that the common or public good takes precedence over personal or commercial financial gain. This is a social and community issue. It is obvious that there should be a responsible rather than a profit-orientated attitude to health care.
At the beginning of his speech the Minister of State said that 51% of Irish people have private insurance. That is significant. It tells us that 51% of Irish people do not regard the public health service as satisfactory. That should be noted and addressed. They have every entitlement to that view. The sad fact, of which the Minister of State is aware, is that this stark figure may well fall because people will not be able to afford private insurance. The Minister of State points out that the VHI market share has fallen to 66%, but that is still a massive share.
Quinn Healthcare and others have moved up the scale. The English crowd, BUPA and others, tried to stick their noses in the trough. There is no doubt that the Quinn group is a very skilful and clever organisation dedicated to the generation of money for itself and its investors. It has a talent for cherrypicking, which is precisely what this Bill is intended to address. It cherrypicks in all its insurance activities. I have heard numerous stories on the radio, and read them in the newspaper, of people who applied to Quinn Direct and Quinn this, that and the other but happened to live in the wrong area of Dublin, as I do. Twice I wrote to Quinn Direct seeking a quote for my house but received no answer. I live in Dublin 1, near 'handbag corner' so it would not give me a quote. It did not even reply. The same applies for certain occupations. That is cherrypicking. That seems to be prevalent in the insurance industry but it is certainly not appropriate when we are dealing with health. Quinn comes to this trailing a reputation for cherrypicking. I am not saying it is doing anything illegal but that is its business practice and it is not appropriate when providing people with health insurance.
One of the interesting aspects of the Supreme Court judgment is that the Chief Justice immediately drew the Government's attention to the fact that it was not ruling out the principle of looking after the most vulnerable people through risk equalisation and more or less urged the Government to bring forward a new scheme. There are many occasions when the Judiciary reproves the Oireachtas for allowing lacunae to exist in the law. It also has ideas on its side of the fence on how we as legislators should address the law. I have suggested here a couple of times that there should be some channel of communication between the Judiciary and the Oireachtas. I know there is separation of powers but that does not mean there cannot be communication. There should be some institutionalised system whereby if the Judiciary sees a gap in the law that damages the interest of citizens, it can send a message asking us to look into it. That could perhaps operate in two ways.
I notice that the commission has approved this and so on. In general I welcome this Bill because it is in the interests of all of us. We are a community, not just a collection of financial units, and anything other than this would lead to a rather nasty fragmentation of society and compartmentalisation on an age basis. I suppose I would feel that as I sail into my late 60s. It is good that we do not stand idly and that we attempt to amend what could have been a fracturing of our sense of community.

Order of Business - 2nd July 2009

Order of Business – 2nd July 2009
Senator David Norris: I would like to raise the matter of pharmacies, which other colleagues have raised. It is very worrying. Once again we are in a mess. There are questions of employment, delivery of services to the public and a loss of jobs. We have all been involved in this over the years. It is ridiculous.
With regard to last night, it was a very good debate. We should welcome the fact that the Minister took on board the amendments, which many of us urged. It is a question of definition, however, and there were a series of very loose definitions.
I am astonished by the behaviour of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, in the other House. He has agreed to cut the fines for the blasphemy sections of the law from €100,000 to €25,000, and said yesterday in the Dáil that the draft of the legislation on blasphemy has been deliberately drawn up to make it virtually impossible to get a successful prosecution out of it. That is a very peculiar way to be drafting law. We are drafting law so that nobody can be properly prosecuted. It is a complete farce, a nonsense and an insult to the intelligence of the people. The whole question of blasphemy ought to be blown out of it.
I mentioned definitions. I cannot give the House a definition of blasphemy, but I can give a description of it.
It is one we all heard and was printed in The Irish Times, that respectable newspaper, when that remarkable man, Mr. O'Brien, a former Fianna Fáil mayor of Clonmel, said: "They raped me, they buggered me, they beat the shite out of me and the next day put the Host in my mouth." That showed the most extraordinary disregard for God and man. That is blasphemy. The laws were in place at the time but they did not nothing to save that unfortunate child. Let us not have a pretence or a farce. Let us have real and properly drafted legislation and forget all this nonsense about blasphemy.

Local Government (Charges) Bill 2009 - Committee Stage Debate - 1st July 2009

Local Government (Charges) Bill 2009 – Committee Stage Debate – 1st July 09

Senator David Norris: I am floating in on this rather opportunistically. Senator Doherty raised the spectre of self-catering units and asked whether the fine was to be applied to each unit. I received communication at a very late date from somebody I know who is engaged in the self-catering chalet business. The cost of levies and fines would apparently be sufficient to put him out of business. If possible, I will send a copy to the Minister and consider tabling some amendment. I know it is not practical for the Minister, having yielded to much public persuasion on the matter of mobile homes etc., to exempt every single category one by one. If he did, he would be left with absolutely nothing in the kitty. However, I want to fire this shot so I will be able to say I mentioned the issue, tabled an amendment or sent the communication to the Minister for his consideration.

Local Government (Charges) Bill 2009 - Second Stage Debate - 1st July 2009

Local Government (Charges) Bill 2009 – Second Stage Debate – 1st July 2009

Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State. I listened with interest to the contribution of the Minister, Deputy Gormley, and I note he intends the charge to relate not just to rental and holiday homes but also to vacant properties. That is a good development because it will provide an incentive for the charge to be passed on.
It is critical the Minister should make clear that the most important exemption relates to principal private residences and that this is not a full-scale property tax. Such a tax appears to be on the Government's agenda and if that is the case, so be it. However, the Minister should beware of recreating the old-style rating system which employed a measurement system involving square or cubic footage. I must declare an interest in respect of this matter. People such as I who renovated slum properties in the inner city because of their heritage value would be taxed out of existence were such a system to come into place. A number of members of the North Great George's Street Preservation Society have already stated that if such a system were introduced, it would sound the death knell in respect of everything the society has done. If the Government is contemplating the introduction of a residential property tax in respect of people's homes, it should be aware it may have a negative impact such as that which I have outlined.
Those who drafted the Bill were careful to take cognisance of the situation of people who, because they are moving house, may for a short period possess two residential homes. Such people will be exempted, which is perfectly appropriate. I also welcome the position with regard to people in the aftermath of a divorce. It is interesting that the Minister has yielded to the lobby in respect of mobile homes. This move may well be appropriate.
I commend Senator Boyle on making clear his respect for the House. Although the Senator was invited to appear on a very popular and important radio programme yesterday, he did not do so because he is of the view that the House is the correct forum in which to discuss this issue. I have no doubt the Senator put forward an effective case in respect of the legislation during his contribution.
That Minister indicated that, having been advised of the difficulty in respect of mobile homes, he is preparing an amendment. That amendment has not yet been presented to the House. We will all examine it with interest when it emerges. I heard a number of people state on radio that while they possess what are classified as mobile homes, these type of homes are quite static, have steps built up to their entryways, are connected to sewerage and water systems, etc. Therefore, questions arise in this regard.
Had a decision been made to tax mobile homes, it would have been intriguing to discover whether the Traveller community would have come within the remit of the legislation. There is a case to be put to the effect that some very wealthy Travellers might very well be able to afford to pay such a tax. I say this as a great admirer of the Traveller community. I just received a copy of a wonderful magazine, Voice of the Traveller, and I wish to state that all Travellers can be very proud of the contribution their community has made.
I welcome that the Minister has reconsidered the position with regard to mobile homes. I received representations from a person who is a graduate in the area of tourism and economics who informed me he bought a second-hand mobile home in a beautiful seaside area of County Wicklow. He did so because he wanted his children to be able to live in a safe and healthy environment while on their holidays and also, rather patriotically, because he wanted the family to holiday at home in Ireland. Such behaviour has important environmental and economic aspects because families who take this route do not travel abroad, their carbon footprints are subsequently reduced and they contribute to the local economy by purchasing mobile homes, a large number of which are manufactured in this country. In addition, families who holiday here in their mobile homes contribute to local economies by frequenting shops, accessing services etc. The individual to whom I spoke made an interesting calculation to the effect that tens of millions of euro have been gained as a result of the purchase of mobile homes. If a disincentive is introduced to the equation, such gains would be lost.

Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): I thank the Senator for his contribution.

Senator David Norris: I am sure the Acting Chairman, who is a good Roscommon man and very flexible, will allow me to make a concluding point.

Acting Chairman: I thank the Senator for his kind remarks.

Senator David Norris: I take this opportunity to scotch the rumours to the effect that I am interested in pursuing the position of elected lord mayor of Dublin. Establishing a directly elected office of lord mayor is a good idea.

Acting Chairman: The Senator cannot use this as an opportunity to campaign.

Senator David Norris: If there is to be a directly elected mayor, he or she must possess the right talents. I am modest enough to state that I do not possess them. In addition, he or she must have access to a proper, decent, good, independent budget.

Acting Chairman: I call Senator Quinn. I hope he does not intend to take the opportunity to make a declaration on his own behalf. The Bill before us does not relate to the creation of a directly elected lord mayor of Dublin.

Senator David Norris: Senator Quinn would make a very good lord mayor. I would campaign on his behalf and vote for him.

Private Members Motion on Unemployment - 1st July 2009

Private Members Motion on Unemployment - 1st July 2009

Senator David Norris: I will join the debate from a specific angle because it could be a wide debate. The Minister of State has honourably and honestly put on the record of the House a serious situation, namely, the more than 400,000 people who are unemployed. It is a catastrophic situation that we would not have contemplated some years ago. What will our response be? I will not savage the Government and there will be no personal attacks from me. I have the greatest regard for Members on the other side, particularly Senator Boyle, who is constructive.
I want to examine the debate from the point of view of tourism, as it is all I will be able to address in my time. I will highlight a number of matters that the Minister of State should take up. Will he do so? I will start with something that is close to my heart, namely, the College of Catering at Cathal Brugha Street. I am an admirer of the Dublin Institute of Technology, DIT, and the Cathal Brugha Street college in particular. We always had the best ingredients - fish, fowl and meat - and a wonderful environment, but we made a comprehensive hash out of them because our cooking was so rotten until the college came on the scene.
There is a degree of academic snobbery in the proposal to reorganise the college. It is being reorganised to downgrade tourism and split it between other Departments as part of the process of DIT looking for university status. While I agree that it should have that status, particularly by the time it arrives at the Grangegorman site, what it is doing is dangerous.
The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism and the Minister for Education and Science should be contacted to ask the governing body of DIT, at a meeting to take place on 15 July, to reconsider the fragmentation of the faculty of tourism and food. It is proposed to split up the three schools that constitute the faculty of tourism and food, including the school of hospitality, and they are to be moved into different sections. There will be no coherence or co-ordination. This looks like the disastrous policy of decentralisation but it is a policy of disintegration. It is a recipe for incoherence and it will definitely threaten the impact of this remarkable institution on tourism.
Why is tourism important? If one considers the World Travel & Tourism Council facts about Ireland, in a report dated March 2009, one will note the contribution of travel and tourism to Irish GDP is expected to rise, even in these difficult circumstances, from 6.5% in 2009 to 6.9% in 2019. In these awful times, that is significant. The contribution of tourism to employment in Ireland is expected to rise. The number employed is anticipated to rise from 122,000 in 2009 to 159,000 in 2019, a ten-year period. That is a lot of jobs. The contribution of tourism to economic growth should be considered.
There is no financial imperative for the fragmentation, nor is there a coherent academic argument therefor. It will just cause a split. It would be very good for the Minister to ask that this proposal be reconsidered. I will be supported in this regard by my valued friend and colleague, Senator Coghlan. We tabled a motion on this side of the House asking for this to be discussed in detail but I had to raise tourism this evening because it is crucial to employment. I want the matter examined before the meeting on 15 July.
The Minister should consider a letter in The Irish Times on Bloomsday, 16 June 2009, signed by Darina Allen, Derry Clarke, Richard Corrigan and others. They know what they are talking about in respect of food and tourism.
I love the Abbey Theatre and I have ideas on its relocation that I will not elaborate on now but I will refer to an interesting development that concerns it. Is the Government aware that there is a proposal to close the set design and scenery construction workshops in the theatre and outsource them to the Untied Kingdom? That is extraordinary. Thirty jobs are to be lost at our national theatre and handed over to the United Kingdom. Three reports have been commissioned on this by three professional assessment consultant companies, the first of which is Long Road Productions. The first line of its report states the theatre should maintain and develop its own scenery workshops. While there may be some difficulties associated with this and while it would be cheaper to have the work done in the United Kingdom, from where one would obtain superb product, we must ask whether we have no pride in our own talent. Should we not develop it rather than close the workshops and cause redundancies in a period of so much unemployment? Closing the workshops puts the Abbey at the mercy of current scenery suppliers and outsourcers in Britain. This is disastrous. Why not develop the young talent? There should be an in-house set building and scenic design workshop of the highest standard. One way of achieving this is to revisit the idea of apprenticeships. This is where one can give hope to young people in this area of the arts.
I was downstairs earlier this afternoon listening to very remarkable people, including former ambassador Ms Mary Whelan from the Department of Foreign Affairs. She was talking about the impact culture can have on exporting. If one considers branding, one will realise the Abbey Theatre is known all over the world, as are James Joyce, U2 and Sinéad O'Connor. They give us an identification and personality in terms of selling material. We should concentrate on making the Abbey Theatre an institution that is really iconic, recognised all over the world, and that fosters our own native talent.
I totally support Fiach MacConghail, the director of the Abbey Theatre. We are extraordinarily lucky to have a man of such unbounded talent and ideas. He has, within a limited budget, reorganised the theatre. He turned it from a barn into a real theatre by way of the wonderful raked auditorium. I welcome the fact that the Abbey is increasing the number of productions. That may lead to some difficulties with getting the scenery in on time but, in spite of that, apprenticeships should be reintroduced and endorsed. We could start designing for other groups, including RTE and independent television production companies.
When walking down Grafton Street yesterday I was handed a piece of green paper by some workers outside Thomas Cook. The company is being closed down, yet it just announced profits of €400 million. Why is it closing down? Many jobs will be lost and families will be put under strain. At the same time, the CEO of Thomas Cook, Mr. Manny Fontenla-Novoa, has just given himself a 34% pay rise and a bonus of €7 million. This is the reward he gives to workers for boosting the company's profits. He will make 2,000 low-paid workers redundant throughout these islands. What the company will have to pay to sack the workers is less than one tenth of the CEO's bonus. It is pulling out of the Republic of Ireland after 120 years. It would be good if we could contact the company and state it was once reputable and honoured and respected by its customers but that it does not deserve respect for the way it is treating Irish workers.

Order of Business - 1st July 2009

Order of Business - 1st July 2009
Senator David Norris: I support the call by Senator Leyden for a debate on the Middle East. At this hour, as we speak, my former partner of many years, Ezra Yitzrak Nawi, is being sentenced in a court in Jerusalem. His crime is that he took part in a non-violent demonstration against the demolition of the home of two elderly Palestinians. Film clearly shows him removing stones from the hands of some of the more aggressive Palestinians, telling them it was a non-violent demonstration. He disappears from the frame and emerges some minutes later, dishevelled, with the soldiers smiling. He has been charged and convicted of attacking the soldiers. The judge in the case said there was a conflict of evidence but she chose to believe the police and the soldiers.
This is the Denning judgment, the appalling vista, and it is a moral disgrace. I express my gratitude to this House, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and, most particularly, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, who has been directly and courageously engaged in detail with our representatives in the Middle East. I thank him for it.
Senator Leyden was correct concerning the act of piracy conducted yesterday by the Israeli navy against the appropriately named Spirit of Humanity, 24 nautical miles off the coast of Gaza. The Israelis have no legal interest in this. It was an act of piracy. The name of the ship is significant and important. The cargo was toys, medicines and food for a people that have been described by the International Red Cross as being in despair after the blitzkrieg visited upon them illegally by the Israeli Government, which is in betrayal of the noble spirit of Judaism. The Israelis previously sank another boat in which one of the passengers was an 84 year old Jewish Holocaust survivor. Therefore, let nobody say this is anti-Semitism. It is an attempt, in difficult circumstances, to keep alive the spirit of humanity.

Criminal Justice Surveillance Bill 2009 - Second Stage Debate - 30th JUne 2009

Criminal Justice Surveillance Bill 2009 – Second Stage Debate - 30th June 2009
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State. Like many preceding speakers, I am an amateur and do not have legal qualifications. Unfortunately, I missed the contribution by my colleague, Senator Bacik, who has an astute, professional view on these matters. However, I have some comments to make.
I will comment first on the Minister of State's speech and then on a short briefing I got from the Irish Human Rights Commission. This Bill comes, I presume, in the context of various murders, in particular gangland murders and drug related offences. This area is a huge industry. It is astonishing these offences take place so flagrantly and blatantly. People even boast about their involvement in these matters, at least by implication, on sites like Facebook. Some notorious criminals and their molls in Limerick have put material up on Facebook boasting about "my favourite gun" in the aftermath of a murder. This is an affront to civilised, decent society.
There has been a notable, changing, sophisticated pattern of the use of electronic information in murder trials over recent years, for example, the use of mobile phone patterns where signals are picked up from one centre to another. However, whereas the pattern of movement of a suspect can be placed before the court as evidence, I have yet to learn of a situation where the substance of a conversation has been placed before the court. This means we have a situation where the police may know a crime has been or is about to be committed, but is paralysed in terms of bringing the evidence before the court. Therefore, I welcome the development that will allow this to happen. We must be careful however, because we are talking here about secret surveillance. Any involvement by the State in spying, which is what it is, on individual citizens must be examined carefully in case of what the American military would call "friendly fire". We do not want decent citizens or people involved in minor infringements to be involved in this area.
The Minister of State said in his speech, "Both Bunreacht na hÉireann and the European Convention on Human Rights guarantee an accused person's right to a fair trial." That is only right. However, I noticed he did not refer to privacy. I would think that an important element. We have an obligation in international law to respect the privacy of the citizen except in rare and circumscribed circumstances. The privacy of third parties has not been raised in this debate so far. The police may be able to listen in to conversations and to sit some distance away and use electronic instruments to penetrate into a person's home, but while there may well be a criminal present, there may also be a perfectly innocent third party present whose activities should not be of interest to the police. In cases where the news media also have access, an innocent person could be dragged unwittingly into the situation. I ask the Minister of State to consider the rights of innocent third parties who may, willy-nilly, have become involved in a criminal situation.
I am glad Senator Walsh raised the matter of an arrestable offence because this is something I marked as needing further consideration. There seems to be a fairly low threshold for this and there are a myriad of arrestable offences.

Senator Jim Walsh: We agree on many things.

Senator David Norris: On one or two, but it is a pity the Senator is such a sour puss on gay rights.

Senator Jim Walsh: I agreed with the Senator on the civil partnership issue.

Senator David Norris: Perhaps we will subject the Senator to surveillance, put a tracking device on him and see what he is up to see if we can embarrass him into supporting it - a bit of blackmail.

Senator Jim Walsh: Senator Norris said today he was going to oppose it.

Senator David Norris: No. We must not let this debate get too light-hearted because this is a serious matter.

An Cathaoirleach: It is time to move on.

Senator David Norris: I notice the Revenue Commissioners can apply to carry out surveillance. This must be considered only in a serious situation. I do not believe every little person who is massaging his tax returns should be subject to this. They deserve a little slack and not this kind of surveillance. The Minister of State spoke about ex parte applications. Of course the application would be ex parte as one would hardly send a notification to the person to be subjected to secret surveillance.
The provision in section 11 is excellent. It is a necessary and important corrective that people who are subjected to secret surveillance will have the right to make an appeal and should be compensated. I say this as someone who had his telephone bugged a number of years ago. I found the situation irritating, laughable and entertaining, but I would have made a complaint if possible and would have claimed €5,000 as well. That would have been welcome.
I note the Ministers for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Defence and Finance may make regulations under the Act. Why is this? This function should be centralised. This is a matter of justice and only the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform should have this power. I do not want the Minister for Finance sticking his nose into this, nor do I want the Minister for Defence doing so. They should have to work through the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and should not be given free rein.
Before I come to the briefing by the Irish Human Rights Commission, I refer to the dreadful lost opportunity by the Government when it downsized and made its mean-minded attacks on various organisations. Today, I am sad to say, is the day of the funeral of the Combat Poverty Agency, which is shameful. The Irish Human Rights Commission has survived but in a slightly downsized form. I urge the Minister of State to take back to his colleagues the suggestion made at the launch of the last annual report that the Irish Human Rights Commission should be used by Government. It should send legislation to that so that it can be human rights proofed. The Government does not have to take up all its suggestions but this practice would be very useful and would cut some corners. The commission suggests that the definition of surveillance should include ongoing repeated photographing of people so that such actions by the Garda would also be subject to review. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
With regard to tracking devices, four months is too long a time without a requirement to return to the judge to ask for an extension. In the case of a review by a High Court judge, when something suspect is discovered, the object of surveillance must be informed. This is good. I believe the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission should also be included in the Bill. I suggest we follow the principle that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If there is criminal activity against a member of the public by a person who happens to be a member of the Garda, that person should have the right to get the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission to use the same machinery against that member.
A detailed and accessible code of human rights-based practice should be included in the regulations to be published by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform so that citizens can consult it to see where they stand with regard to this important new legislation. In general and in outline, I welcome what the Minister is doing with this Bill.

Order of Business - 30th June 2009

Order of Business - 30th June 2009
Senator David Norris: I note with interest that the Civil Partnership Bill 2009 has been published. I cannot welcome it-----
Senator Joe O'Toole: Hear, hear.
Senator David Norris: -----but I understand that a considerable amount of work has gone into it. An historic opportunity has been missed through a lack of vision on the part of Government. What we have is the copperfastening of inequality and discrimination, but it is an advance. When will the Bill be presented to the House and will it be introduced in this Chamber, where such legislation was pioneered some five or six years ago?
The worst aspect of the Bill is that the position of children is completely ignored. This is not a matter of sex or religion. Rather, it is about the rights of children. During the commemorations of the 1919 sitting of the first Dáil, we heard much bleating about cherishing the children of the nation equally and children's rights, but it looks as if the Government has learned nothing. It does not give a fish's tit for the rights of children, going by the Bill.
I also wish to raise a subject to which my good friend and colleague on the other side of the House, Senator Harris, will want to contribute, namely, the Shell to Sea campaign. He and I asked for a debate. I suggest that Members might like to look at the picture in last weekend's Sunday Independent. It shows an enormous ship with its jaws open like a dragon to devour the mineral resources of this country. Another picture shows a vast ship dwarfing one of the Naval Service vessels. The pictures tell us who is in control. All of the oil companies have their tongues out a yard long for oil. Its price is increasing as its amount decreases. Now is the time to renegotiate on behalf of the people. Shell can take our gas through our land and expose people to danger, but we have the opportunity to bid for it on the open market. Well, gee, thanks, Shell.