European Bill 2009 - 2nd Stage Debate - 22nd October 2009

European Bill 2009 - 2nd Stage Debate - 22nd October 2009
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State. We have had a certain amount of sparring over the period on this matter but we have finally managed to bring our views into a certain degree of alignment. I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Bill because I was probably the first person in this House at the time of the previous referendum to declare a position against the Lisbon treaty. I made my reservations and the reason for those reservations perfectly clear. They were because of what I perceived as the increasing militarisation of the Union and my inability to get this taken seriously at Government level, particularly the “morphing”, to use a horrible modern word, of the European armaments group into the less sinister-sounding European Defence Agency. I tried to raise this with the Oireachtas joint committee established but they ignored it. I tried to raise it with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, and it was deflected in a manner fairly similar to the way in which the abuse of Shannon Airport during the rendition flights period was brushed aside by answering completely different questions to the ones I raised. However, I was very pleased with the assistance of some of the departmental officials who are here today to extract in the weeks before the final vote on this referendum a specific commitment from the Minister on behalf of the Government and signed and delivered to me and with the indulgence of the Chair I wish to put some of this correspondence on the record of the House. It is the instrument that allowed me to change sides, which I wanted to do, because I have always supported the European Union and the European movement generally. He first wrote some nice things about my change of heart and then continued:

I am happy to give you the reassurance you request regarding Ireland’s position on an EU munitions industry. We would have no interest in supporting any efforts to develop a European munitions industry for export. The Lisbon Treaty does not contemplate any such policy initiative or make any provision for movement in that direction. Ireland would indeed resist any pressure which might be exercised in future by any Member State to take the Union down such a route, which would , of course, require a unanimous decision in the unlikely event that any such move were ever to be contemplated at EU level.
In my opinion this amounts to a commitment to use the veto. The reason for my concern is the kind of incautious things said over the preceding years and also during the first referendum campaign by, in particular, the French, who seemed to be driving in this direction. It appeared to me they were determined to use the kind of shelf company of the European armaments group to promote this idea of a munitions industry for export and to go into competition with the American munitions industry. In my view this explained the intervention of Mr. Declan Ganley because he was plugged in to certain aspects of the American munitions establishment. I thought that was one of his principal motivations in campaigning against the Lisbon treaty because he saw the danger of competition in this area. This aspect was never explored by people in public, so far as I know.
He was a bit of an embarrassment on the occasion when I was on the “No” side but there were a lot of other embarrassments. I refer to those people who said that if we voted for Lisbon, we would get homosexual marriage and abortion information and God knows what else. As I said at the time, if I thought that, I would vote for it. Although I am not sure that sexual orientation is actually included in the provisions of this Bill-----

Deputy Dick Roche: I draw the Senator’s attention to the charter which is a wonderful expression of all the rights and is a wonderful expression of the safeguarding of citizens for a whole variety-----
Senator David Norris: That is rather general.

Deputy Dick Roche: It is very specific.

Senator David Norris: It shows the kind of incremental development. I well remember the time in Paris when at a COSAC meeting I had an engagement with Monsieur Alain Juppé. He rounded on me and said the European Union is not a human rights organisation, it has no human rights competence. This is now incrementally growing and it is to be welcomed.
At the conclusion of the Minister’s correspondence he states:

On another matter in which I know you take an interest, [I had raised it with him in a message] I would like to assure you that the promotion and protection of human rights - including those of children and women affected by armed conflict - are integrated fully into the planning and conduct of the EU’s civilian and military missions. An outstanding example is the mission in Chad....Support for human rights in areas of armed conflict is an important part of the Government’s overall approach to human rights, peace-building and development issues.
This statement is very important. The Minister is committed to arms reduction and to protecting the rights of civilians in these areas.
I wish to raise one or two other issues. I deplore the inactivity of President Václav Klaus. It really is a defiance of democracy that he is still refusing to sign the treaty, despite the express wishes of his elected parliament.
Will the Minister of State look into the wheelie bin controversy of the previous referendum in which 3,000 votes in Donegal went missing? There has been no satisfactory explanation of it or of the responsibilities either of the returning officer or the Garda, despite citizens’ concern about this matter.
I have always stated and I still maintain that even if we had voted “No”, we could not have been thrown out of the European Union. Even if we had voted “No” we could not have been relegated to second class citizenship, legally or officially. However, the European Union is something that works on political goodwill.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We are working on a timeframe, Senator.

Senator David Norris: I am finishing now. Political goodwill is the lubrication of the European Union and we have had very fine diplomatic representation in Europe, as previous speakers have stated. We have a very high reputation. I was concerned that in this difficult economic time we might sacrifice that goodwill and turn it into ill will, such that although we could not be punished legally, there are other ways of skinning a cat.

Order of Business - 22nd October 2009

Order of Business - 22nd October 2009
Senator David Norris: It took the leader of Fine Gael four and a half hours to extract a weak vote of support at an unusual meeting of his party members yesterday. Apparently, however, he was supported uncritically and enthusiastically by the leader of Fine Gael in the Seanad, Senator Fitzgerald, as well as Senators Twomey and Donohoe. As two of these Members have served previously in the other House-----

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should ask a question of the Leader on the Order of Business.

Senator David Norris: -----and the other one wants to get into it, they are not really determined to be in this House. In the circumstances, as this proposal was made in the context of an economy measure, is it appropriate that they should continue to serve in this House? Should they honourably surrender their salaries to all the projects they suggested were being cut back because of the existence of this House?
I wish to raise the case heard in Mullingar last week in which a youth of 19 years was sentenced for having consensual sexual relations with a girl aged 16 and three quarters. She was 90 days under the limit and it was accepted that he believed the limit was 16 years. The parents were upset-----

An Cathaoirleach: Has this case finished in the courts?

Senator David Norris: The case is finished.

Senator Alex White: No, it is not.

An Cathaoirleach: It is under appeal.

Senator David Norris: The man has been sentenced-----

An Cathaoirleach: Because if the case is before the courts-----

Senator David Norris: -----and the case has been commented upon in The Irish Times in a clear way.

An Cathaoirleach: -----it may well be under appeal.

Senator David Norris: I wish to raise the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions gave evidence-----

An Cathaoirleach: Please, Senator, he is an independent officer.

Senator David Norris: -----to a committee of the Oireachtas that in such circumstances there had been no prosecutions and that there would be no prosecutions. That is the reason I call it the Romeo and Juliet syndrome. The matter must be investigated because this issue was discussed in the House and I warned this might happen. 11 o’clock
I wish to raise the sentencing yesterday in an Israeli court of Ezra Nawi, an Israeli citizen with whom I had a long relationship and whom I still value. He was sentenced in a manner that was very close to the Denning judgment. He was engaged in a non-violent protest against the illegal demolition of the hovels of some Palestinian subsistence farmers. The film evidence, the only evidence available, shows clearly that this was the case. Previously, there had been attempts by the Israeli Government to have him sentenced on the basis of perjured evidence of soldiers and police, but these were thrown out by a succession of judges. It has now got its way. We should have a debate on the situation in the Middle East. What is really worrying is that Israel, which calls itself a democracy and is always labelled the only democracy in the Middle East, has included conditions in the sentence.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator’s time is up. I call Senator Ó Murchú.

Senator David Norris: He is sentenced to one month in prison but if he takes part in any protest in the next three years, peaceful or otherwise, he will immediately go to jail for six months.

An Cathaoirleach: Thank you, Senator. I call Senator Ó Murchú.

Senator David Norris: That tells the story of democracy in Israel today.

Order of Business - 21st October 2009

Order of Business - 21st October 2009
Senator David Norris: I am 65 years old and do not anticipate seeing pigs in flight, but I am grateful that I have lasted long enough to witness turkeys voting for Christmas. They have certainly done so. I second the amendment to the Order of Business tabled by my colleague, Senator O’Toole.
On the first day back after the election, I tabled the Government’s own proposals for reform. They were enthusiastically supported by Fine Gael and opposed by the Government. Fine Gael was in government for a number of years and could have reformed the Seanad easily with the enthusiastic support of the Independent Senators.

Senator Paddy Burke: That was a minority situation.

Senator David Norris: All Independent Senators produced legislation in recent years that puts this situation in perspective. 3 o’clock
This week, we have seen two squalid performances, the first by the leader of Fine Gael in the Dáil, Deputy Kenny. He unilaterally decided to sacrifice this House on the altar of his own public political ambition to expiate principally the sins of the other House. That was bad enough, but what of the dishonesty of the statements that went with it? He stated that he had announced this at the McGill Summer School, but he was publicly confronted with the record, which showed he had not announced it. The notion that we are going to solve the economic problems of this country by cutting back Seanad Éireann would be laughable were it not so serious to think that a man so financially illiterate might be placed in charge of the destiny of this country.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Senator Norris should withdraw that remark.

Senator David Norris: I am very concerned about——

Senator Jerry Buttimer: He should withdraw that remark.

Senator David Norris: I will not withdraw it.

An Cathaoirleach: Senators, please.

Senator Maurice Cummins: It is not acceptable.

Senator David Norris: I will shout as much as I like.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: It was an insult. On a point of order——

(Interruptions).
Senator Maurice Cummins: On a point of order, that is not acceptable.

An Cathaoirleach: That is not a point of order.

Senator Liam Twomey: That is one reason for abolition.

Senator David Norris: I do not understand why my colleagues in the House are saying, “Hear, hear”, when they want to abolish it. In the name of Jesus, let them stop taking the money now and get the hell out of here.

An Cathaoirleach: Please, Senators.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: The remark was unacceptable.

An Cathaoirleach: It was a political charge.

Senator Maurice Cummins: At a recent meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, we discussed defamatory remarks. This type of remark should not be accepted by the Cathaoirleach. It is not a political charge.

Senator Dan Boyle: It was political. These things are said about us every day of the week.

Senator David Norris: It most certainly was a political charge and I will make a second one. This is not a game.

Senator Maurice Cummins: It was a personal attack on someone who is not in the House.

An Cathaoirleach: Please, I ask Senators to try to stay within the rules of the House.

Senator David Norris: I have done so.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Senator has not and he knows it.

Senator David Norris: I doubt that I will take lessons from Senator Buttimer on that particular angle. The second matter that I would like to——

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris’s time is just up.

Senator David Norris: ——mention is also a squalid performance. Senator Bacik is correct about the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe. In concert with the Senator I raised the question of discrimination against Protestant schools. I hated doing so because I do not like to see any such denominational issue, on which we both agree. The Minister of State was sent here to produce a tissue of fabrications.

An Cathaoirleach: Time, please, Senator.

Senator David Norris: Now, 40 years late, they have discovered it is unconstitutional. How incredible is that? Why was it not put before the House two weeks’ ago when we raised the matter? Thank God for decent, gallant people like Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin who has rode in to try to protect the reputation of the country and its education system when it is being sullied by the squalid dishonesty we have witnessed both here and in the other House.

Order of Business - 15th October 2009

Order of Business - 15th October 2009

Senator David Norris: When will the Leader give time to discuss in the House No. 31, motion 34 on the possible relocation of the Abbey Theatre? The Seanad played an important role in this. The idea was first floated here. It was enthusiastically supported by Senator Coghlan and, importantly, by the Leader of the House. Last weekend Senator Cassidy asked to see me and we had a discussion, and as a result of Senator Cassidy’s interventions, it is now part of the programme for Government. This is welcome.
We need this kind of thing in a period of retrenchment. I was contacted over the weekend by a woman whose grandfather fought shoulder to shoulder with Pádraig Pearse and she said that she thought this would be the best memorial to her grandfather and the others. Yesterday’s meeting of the arts committee placed a context in which we can locate this important theatre. I look forward to this being discussed.
I read an article by Mr. Patsy McGarry in The Irish Times about a leading comedian whom I will not name and remarks he made about the Holocaust in Auschwitz. I went back then and read what had been said and thought it was simply unspeakably awful. It was a real obscenity. I do not believe in censorship but this is not pushing the boundaries of comedy at all. It is something about which I, as an Irish man, felt deeply ashamed. Of course, I also deplore the use of the Holocaust for political reasons by the Israeli Government but that does not excuse this kind of thing. I hope that the person concern will find it in his heart to apologise.
My colleague, Senator Hannigan, mentioned the tragic death of Mr. Stephen Gately, whose name was mentioned. Everybody feels sympathy. He was a remarkably talented, decent and nice young man of whom everybody spoke well. I was saddened to note that in all the official condolences I read there was no mention of his partner. He had a legally contracted spouse and it is a pity that nobody found it in his or her heart to express compassion to him, particularly because I remember when the great actor Micheál Mac Liammóir died in the days when homosexual behaviour between males was criminal that the President, Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh, walked across and shook hands with the bereaved partner, the late Hilton Edwards, and said, “I am sorry for your trouble, Hilton”. We all knew what that meant. That was the traditional greeting to the bereaved spouse. That was a great day for decency in Ireland and I hope that sympathy can now be extended officially to Mr. Gately’s partner.

Adjournment Debate - School Capitation Grants - 8th October 2009

Adjournment Debate - School Capitation Grants - 8th October 2009

Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Barry Andrews, but I am sorry that the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe, is not present.
This is an interesting situation and one that I take on with some delicacy because I do not like to take on any sectarian matter about the Catholic ethos or Protestant ethos. There is, however, a worrying situation here. I wish first to put it into its historical context. Amild-mannered man, the Anglican Archbishop, Dr. John Neill, has said that it is highlydiscriminatory against members of minority religions. This is infinitely regrettable.
Speaking on 2 October 2003 in the other House, the then Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey, said: “There are 59 fee charging second level schools in the country, of which one is Jewish, 21 Protestant, two inter-denominational and the balance Catholic”. That is just about half the number of Protestant schools there were when the State came into existence so there has already been a steady erosion of these schools. He added, “TheProtestant and Jewish schools receive funding by way of a block grant which has its origins in the desire of the State to enable students of the Protestant and Jewish persuasion to attend schools that reflect their denominational ethoi.”
He continued to answer several of the points that the Department had put forward in defence of its swingeing cuts to these schools:

[T]he vast majority of Church of Ireland schools are in rural areas and cater for a scattered Protestant population. Their not receiving State support would cause them great difficulties. These are the kinds of complex issues that are involved.
In other words, they are very different and cannot possibly be described as elitist because they often cater for poor people, those on social welfare who depend on the grant made out of the block grant and who now do not get the per capita grant.
In 1967, introducing this situation, the late Donogh O’Malley, then Minister for Education, said:

In the matter of the free post-primary education scheme special consideration was given to the position of Protestant schools. If the general scheme had been applied to these schools, practically no Protestant pupils would have benefited. In order, therefore, to ensure that Protestants would be treated equitably in the matter of benefit under the scheme, a special arrangement was made whereby a Commission representing the schools under Protestant management is to be paid a lump sum which will be distributed by the Commission in grants towards the school fees of the pupils most in need of such assistance ... one of the main reasons being that the religious in the Catholic schools — priests, brothers and sisters — plough back their salaries while the Protestant schools have not such a source of income . . . It would just not be possible for my Department to distribute the grant in the same manner as we do to the Catholic schools . . . [The Secondary Education Commission for the Protestant Schools] came to the conclusion that the manner in which they were acting was the only manner in which they could act in order to ensure an equitable distribution, taking account of the varying circumstances of the pupils and their families.
Three Fianna Fáil Ministers have outlined the reasons this provision was made and it has been unilaterally altered by this Government. This is a serious matter because it will affect Protestant schools.
The Minister of State has in his files briefing documents transmitted to Senator Bacik and to me which indicate a series of case histories both in the Dublin area and in the country which make it very clear that certain families who are on the margins would not be able to send their children to school if these measures go ahead and are sustained. In the 2009 budget the Government singled out Protestant schools for discriminatory treatment. The Minister, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe, acknowledged this in the Dáil last November, saying, “I am well aware it will cause serious difficulty and I obviously have concerns about this”.
The former archdeacon, Reverend Gordon Linney, writing in The Irish Times last Monday stated:

People might assume that this is an extra concessionary payment exclusive to Protestant schools. It is not. The same funding is given to Catholic schools on a per capita basis whereas the Protestant sector receives it in block form to be channelled to those most in need.
If these proposals are sustained there will be a charge on the Exchequer because at least 10% to 15% of pupils will be dislodged. They will have to be taken into the State sector and there will be a higher cost to the State and several schools will close down completely. This is not in anyone’s interests. It is not good educational practice. Reverend Linney added:

Catholic children have additional supports in their schools through various grants and a much better teacher-pupil ratio ... In one of our rural schools where many family incomes are less than what is available on social welfare, over half the pupils require significant financial assistance with their fees. It is quite disgraceful to label these people as “elitist”.
In other words, because of the dispersed nature of the Protestant population throughout the country there is not normally a school of their ethos within their immediately neighbouring area so they are forced into a situation such that they have to attend boarding schools. They are not boarding for reasons of snobbery but because it is the only way in which they can get this kind of education.
I would like the Minister to think again for several reasons. First, there is an historic precedent. Nothing could be clearer than the arguments advanced by no fewer than three successive Fianna Fáil Ministers which exactly parallel the arguments now being made by the representatives of the minority religions, including the Jewish faith. Second, the whole matter is seen as discriminatory and is regarded as such by the leaders of the minority faiths.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Barry Andrews): On behalf of the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe, I am pleased to be given the opportunity to clarify for the House the position on the funding arrangements for fee-charging Protestant schools. I reassure Senator Norris that I, with my colleagues in government, recognise the importance of ensuring students from a Protestant background can attend a school which reflects their denominational status. The Senator will be aware that the Minister for Education and Science has met representatives of both the Church of Ireland and the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland to discuss the funding position of Protestant schools and the background to the decision in the October budget to remove certain grants from such schools. The Minister emphasises that no changes have been made to the block grant which is expected to be €6.5 million in this school year. It covers capitation, tuition and boarding costs——

Senator David Norris: Rot.

Deputy Barry Andrews: ——and is distributed through the Secondary Education Committee, SEC, established by the churches concerned. This fund ensures necessitous Protestant children can attend a school of their choice. I advise the Senator that officials from the Department of Education and Science have met representatives from the SEC to discuss future funding arrangements for Protestant schools. In this context, the Minister has expressed his willingness to consider any proposals that might be made to the Department that would enable the available funding to be focused and adjusted to meet more effectively the twin objectives of access for individuals and sustaining the schools they wish to attend, particularly those in rural areas.
The October budget implemented changes in how all fee charging schools are treated in respect of the number of publicly funded teaching posts allocated to them. With effect from 1 January this year, teachers in fee charging schools are allocated at a pupil teacher ratio of 20:1, a point higher than allocations in non fee charging post-primary schools. In view of the challenging economic circumstances we are facing, the Minister is not in a position to reverse this decision. The decision is justified on the basis that schools which have access to fees as an income source are in a better position to maintain services at a time when the public finances are under such severe pressure. Fee charging schools can continue to employ additional teachers that they fund from their fee income. The Minister will continue to work with representatives of the Protestant education sector to ensure State funding made available to the Protestant community is targeted in the fairest way possible to meet the needs of their children and their schools.
Planned expenditure levels for the Department of Education and Science will be considered as part of the Estimates and budgetary process for 2010. This will include consideration of the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes, SGPSNEP. The decisions on all the issues arising will be a matter for the Government. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this stage, pending the outcome of that deliberative process.

Senator David Norris: Now we know why the Minister, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe, was ashamed to show his face——

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

Senator David Norris: That is one of the most disgraceful responses I have ever heard. It is blatantly sectarian and a tissue of lies. I am beginning to wonder if there is not an agenda at certain levels within the Department among those who have the same view as Senator Bacik and I that sectarian education is not a good idea, who would like, by stealth and imposing their policy on a weak Minister, to extinguish the Protestant schools. I would like the Minister of State to pass this information — some of the figures — to the Minister. The total number of pupils in 21 Protestant voluntary schools is 9,500; the estimated total number of Protestant pupils attending is 6,600; the total number on a grant from the SEC is 2,850——

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

Senator David Norris: ——and the total on a full SEC grant is 1,000. How can the Minister square these figures? More than half of the Protestant pupils attending are getting grants because they are poor. This is getting worse. The action of the Government has got rid of secretarial and maintenance grants. Any objective independent analysis will show that this is discriminatory and that as a result of the Government’s actions, the Protestant schools are worse off. That is fine, if the State decides it will move in the direction of non-denominational, non-sectarian education throughout the State. I will support it. It is the duty of the parents, not the schools, to produce the ethos. I remind the Minister of State of Article 42.3.1° of the Constitution which states: “The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State or to any particular type of school designated by the State”. This is what the Department of Education and Science is doing to my community and I object to it. I will support and hope the record of the Adjournment debate in this House will be used to support any constitutional action undertaken to overcome this vicious and discriminatory policy of the Department.

Deputy Barry Andrews: I have met Eleanor Petrie and many representatives of the fee paying Protestant schools and this is the first time I have heard wild allegations about conspiracies and sectarianism in the Department of Education and Science.

Senator David Norris: I did not say that.

Deputy Barry Andrews: On the contrary, they have engaged in a very constructive way with the Department and Members of this House in informing and explaining to Members the distinction with regard to Protestant schools in the areas in which they are involved and particularly the demands met in rural areas. The campaign will be part of the deliberative process in the budgetary process. They have also accepted the fact that everybody has to take a hit in the current climate and are being constructive in the proposals they are putting to the Minister. Far from being weak, he will endeavour to the best of his abilities to ensure the constitutional imperatives to which the Senator referred are discharged fully for the protection of those students who wish to follow a specific spiritual ethos and those parents who wish to access that spiritual ethos in their children’s education.

Senator David Norris: I have a final supplementary question for the Minister of State.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator, there is no such provision.

Senator David Norris: If it is not sectarian, why was the Orange Order dragged in as a red herring in his speech? What does the Orange Order have to do with anything?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator, there is no provision for a further question.

Senator David Norris: Perhaps it is a Masonic order.

Order of Business - 8th October 2009

Order of Business - 8th October 2009
Senator David Norris: I wanted to call for a debate on education in light of the unspent moneys at the Department of Education and Science and the wonderful news about Trinity College Dublin and UCD numbering among the world’s first 50 and 100 universities, respectively, but I cannot.
I am furious, given the way in which the House and its politicians are being treated. I would be happy to sign up to making everything transparent. I would like the people to know how often and for how long I am here. I would like them to know that the ushers ask me at 10 p.m. when I will be leaving Leinster House.
With fury, I listened to an item on RTE radio this morning. It was headlined “Corruption”, but it was about the expenses of Senators and Deputies. I feel sullied because we are all being tarred with the same brush. I damn anyone who impugns my integrity in the public arena by name, as he or she will wind up in the courts.

Senator Terry Leyden: Hear, hear.

Senator David Norris: A couple of months ago, I was telephoned by a tabloid newspaper and asked how I could justify travelling expenses of €6,000 or so. I told the newspaper that I could not. When I was asked whether I had anything else to say, I stated that I had never claimed a single penny because I walked every day, as I walked today. I have never claimed travelling expenses. It was a daily allowance, but it appeared in a newspaper article under the headline “Politicians with snouts in their trough” alongside my photograph. The one thing that the newspaper did not mention was that my expenses were the second lowest in the entire House.
Let us have a bit of responsible journalism and an historical review. I would like the people to know our attendance levels because we all attend well. I would like them to know my voting record, my attendance at committee meetings, my contributions, the legislation that I have tabled and the hours that I have worked. Let them have the whole damn lot, but I will not have my honour and integrity impugned. If newspapers go on like this, they will drive all the decent people out of politics, leaving only the dross. It will be what they bloody well deserve.

Senator Camillus Glynn: That is right.

Senator David Norris: I am angry. Before the war, I visited Baghdad in an attempt to secure the human rights of the unfortunate people of Iraq. We got 43p per day because we were slavishly following the British instruction, but the British wanted to keep people like myself out of Iraq.
What can we do? We must be open. I believed that the item on corruption was going to be about Berlusconi. I remember the scandals in the Roman Catholic Church. Although I was one of the most trenchant critics, I stood up every time and stated that, because there were decent people, we should not tar everyone with the same brush. Let us have the facts and examine the real situation. When I attended a meeting of the IPU in Australia, I was given a first class ticket but I traded it in and travelled third class, even to Beijing where, on my own initiative, I raised questions that led to a significant cultural exchange. I was telephoned about the trip beforehand and asked whether I would enjoy myself on the so-called junket. The tabloid wrote its article before the trip.
I had a stand-up row with Mr. Gareth Evans about the situation in what was then East Timor and raised the matter of AIDS. I had things forced through that were reported in the medical and British newspapers, but there was not a single bloody line in the Irish newspapers.

An Cathaoirleach: Point made.

Senator David Norris: When I asked about this, I was told that politicians on a junket was a story but that politicians working was not. Let us have a bit of responsibility and let the House be reported properly. I want the people to know what work I do.

An Cathaoirleach: Please, time.

Senator David Norris: They would get good bang for their buck.

Senator Paul Coghlan: Hear, hear.

Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009 - Second Stage Debate - 7th October 2009

Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009 - Second Stage Debate - 7th October 2009.
Senator David Norris: I thank Senator Quinn for allowing me to speak in his time. Planning matters are very important, particularly as they impact on housing. The Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, has been in the House on a number of occasions dealing in a progressive manner with housing developments. We have had very interesting and useful debates.
I am not as big a fan of An Bord Pleanála as some of my colleagues. It should be subject to criticism. It has made some very bizarre judgments in the past. I would be concerned were we to allow serious major decisions on planning with really significant implications to be taken by a meeting attended by only two people. Such decisions affect people’s lives and livelihoods, welfare and social circumstances, and they affect the environment. Two people should not make such decisions. Three is already a pretty small number.
There are certain things in the Bill of which I strongly approve. I compliment the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy Gormley. We hear much in this House about how marvellous local authorities are. I do not share that unalloyed enthusiasm. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, made a significant contribution to this area when he reversed decisions in counties Monaghan and Mayo. In Monaghan there had been gross overdesignation creating an enormous area around the town multiplying the population without any provision of services.
There has been mention of flood relief schemes. In human terms, one must sympathise with people who are in difficulty because their homes have been flooded. In certain areas, such as Clonmel, people have suffered from this sort of thing for many generations. However, we are still allowing people to build on flood plains. Why should the taxpayer be forced to rescue the victims of developers who build, with planning permission, on areas where they should not build? That is quite extraordinary. I hope the Department will follow the lead given by the Minister in addressing this issue.
I am glad some of the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission are to be implemented. There is one in particular of which I heartily approve. Power is to be given to planning authorities to refuse planning permission where the applicant has previously carried out a substantial unauthorised development or has been convicted of an offence under the planning Acts.
One of my colleagues referred to unqualified architects. I think that situation was addressed in a Bill in the last year. During the debate on that Bill I instanced a situation which arose around the corner from my home where a man, who is a scoundrel, described himself as an architect. No one could stop him. He had a series of 18th century houses which he had completely desecrated. He was convicted of planning violations in the front of a house while on the very same day was given permission by the planning authority to do even worse things at the back. That is one of the reasons I do not respect An Bord Pleanála. I am glad this power is given and I ask the Minister and his officials to supervise it and ensure it is clearly enacted. This is the kind of thing which gives planning a very bad name.
Another person submitted an application for a development of town houses near me. They were very beneficial as they protected the back aspect of some of the houses. Someone from the area objected and delayed the entire development. The objector talked about the impact on, essentially, my house. The town houses were not within an ass’s roar of my house. The whole development was stymied and the scheme was redrawn. I am living with the new development but it is not half as good as the first one. It is outrageous that planning authorities can intervene because of some nosey parker and that as a result of the planning process one gets a less good development. That is crazy.
I endorse what Senator Quinn said about fitness. The development for schools is very good news. Section 25 is to provide for the possibility of a supplementary development contribution scheme to help finance the provision of new schools that might benefit a particular community or area. I will not hold my breath in the present financial circumstances but at least the power is there. There is also reference to the creation, management and restoration of sites of scientific or ecological interest.
The Bill is a compendium which addresses a series of things. I looked through it to see if there was any reference to railways. I am in favour of anything that makes our planning efficient, clear and fair, respects the environment and the ecology and leads to sustainable development. When I was a member of the Joint Committee on Transport I discovered that we are miles behind countries like Spain. In that country it was possible to develop a metro system because the planning laws had been adjusted to secure rights to land underneath houses and it was not necessary to go through endless and fractious compensation tribunals. I see nothing about this in the Bill. Perhaps I missed it. If not, can we continue to promote the development of railways? One of the areas where planning has an impact is in the provision of public transport.
Last weekend, I spoke to a meeting of the House’s favourite group, An Taisce. I told them the paint almost comes off the ceiling in the Seanad when An Taisce is mentioned because Members are all gung ho in favour of one-off housing development in the countryside. I told them I have been telling this House that An Taisce warned about this matter. Were its members not right? Planning permission has been given for houses with no provision for services or consideration of water pollution. Instead of a knee-jerk attack on groups like An Taisce that sound a warning, we should be trying to take into consideration their legitimate concerns regarding our planning legislation.

Acting Chairman: I knew Senator Norris would fill the time allotted to him.

Senator David Norris: I apologise. I did not think I would.

Acting Chairman: The Senator did.

Order of Business - 7th October 2009

Order of Business - 7th October 2009
Senator David Norris: In your statement on privilege, a Chathaoirligh, you indicated that you would tolerate no abuses of privilege. That is appropriate. However, as you spoke it seemed to me that you are allowing no use whatever of the privilege. A privilege that cannot be used is meaningless. I have used this privilege. It must be used sparingly and judiciously. I used it, within the term of this Parliament, on the Adjournment and I was successful in righting a serious wrong against a citizen. I propose to use it again when the immigration Bill is brought before the House if the Government persists in the most extraordinary course of naming someone to an office about whom I think the House is entitled to raise doubts. I serve warning that I will do so. It is important we have this freedom.
We should debate the McCarthy report. Mr. McCarthy has taken a scattergun approach. He is like someone who brings a machine gun to a coconut shy. He gets a couple of bull’s eyes but the place is wrecked and some personnel are injured. The idea of scrapping the Irish Film Board is insane. It has yielded money and led to the development of an industry. We need to value-for-money test every proposal in the McCarthy report.
Yesterday, I agreed with Senator Fitzgerald who objected to the idea of mere nomination to the board of FÁS. That is not appropriate and does not allow for transparency or accountability, which we need to have in these circumstances. I was astonished to hear Mr. Tom O’Connell of the Central Bank say the economy was bubbling along on the bottom, as if this was satisfactory. People are losing jobs and are under pressure. There are difficulties in Aer Lingus and in other places. Against this background we must be very careful.
I wish to raise two brief matters. Can the Leader give the House a date for the introduction of a Civil Partnership Bill? In the previous Lisbon treaty referendum, the misallocation of 3,000 votes was discovered as a result of a random sample of 10%. A citizen in, I think, Donegal asked for an explanation of this from the Minister, the returning officer and the Garda Síochána but has been met by silence. He was concerned because a referendum could be won or lost by a small margin of votes. In this case it was not. The margin was overwhelming. Nevertheless, the position remains. We must be able to have trust in the effectiveness and fairness of the ballot.

Public Transport Regulation Bill 2009 - Committee Stage - 6th October 2009

Public Transport Regulation Bill 2009 - Committee Stage - 6th October 2009
Senator David Norris: I support the amendment which seems obvious and logical. If an operator is deemed unfit, he should be deemed unfit right across the board, in which case it would be inappropriate for him to operate with another licence. I have no difficulty in supporting the amendment which seems to be logical and which should be dealt with quickly.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator David Norris: I have a small point. This is a refining of the import of the Bill because as I see it, a licence is a permission to operate. A contract suggests both the permission to operate and a slightly greater emphasis on the duties, obligations and responsibilities of the operator, both morally and legally. For that reason it is perhaps the better word.
Senator David Norris: I support this amendment. This is an important section because it decides the principle under which large elements of the legislation will operate. It is important that we support our public transport system as strongly as possible. I was never an advocate of privatisation. I regard the privatisation of Aer Lingus and Eircom as disasters. Without any suggestion of a party affiliation, which I do not have, one could suggest that I am an old-fashioned Lemass-style supporter of public investment in public utilities. It is a good thing that we ensure we have a strong public transport sector.
The amendment states that, among the principles to be regarded under this section, it will have regard to the desirability of ensuring that operators of public bus services are not treated less favourably than operators of private bus services but they are quite often. One example is that the State bus company is required to provide off-street parking for vehicles but there appears to be no such requirement on private bus companies. The latter park all over the joint. I can give an example from my local area, which I raised at the central area policing committee on Monday. Mountjoy Square is lined from end to end with buses, mostly private buses, despite the fact there are no less than four crèches on the square. Small children, infants and toddlers are emerging from between the busses yet there is no requirement, as there is on Bus Éireann, to provide off-street parking. We should have a level playing field. That is one area the Minister of State would be well advised to examine.
I wish to comment on the general context in which this takes place. I welcome much of what is included in the section and the language used, particularly in section 10(1)(b)(i) which reads, “the need to provide a well-functioning, attractive, competitive, integrated and safe public transport system of services and networks for all users”. I commend the Minister of State, his advisers and the drafters for including the word “attractive”. If the public is given a scuttery, old, diseased looking service with awful buses, it will treat it with the contempt that the bus service treats passengers.
I very much hope the metro project will go ahead. If it does, it will be in a period of financial stringency. Nevertheless, it should be an attractive service. We should not have ugly, functional, concrete metro stations because they would be a waste of time and money and would be treated with contempt and vandalised. When I was a member of the Joint Committee on Transport, I expressed ideas about how it should be done. While I am positive towards many elements of the Bill, I strongly agree with the Labour Party’s amendment on supporting public transport.

Senator David Norris: I am not shattered by surprise that Senator Cannon agrees with his former colleague, Senator O’Malley. They would not be ideologically poles apart.
With regard to the transport service, I am reading a very interesting history of north Dublin city and county, illustrated by antique photographs. One of the stories is about the collapse of certain sections of the private transport service in that area in the early and middle part of the 20th century; therefore, it does not always work. The people were left stranded.
I will make one delicate comment; I admire immensely my colleague, Senator Quinn, and like to believe we share a friendship but, of course, we do not agree on everything. He stated he had seen the buses at Dublin Airport and rather admired them. He did not state he had taken one. I rest my case.

Order of Business - 6th October 2009

Order of Business - 6th October 2009
Senator David Norris: Senator Keaveney has asked that those who changed their minds on the Lisbon treaty be instructed to say why. I am one of those who did so. I was the first, or among the first, in this House to oppose, campaign and vote against the Lisbon treaty but I changed my mind because we had made substantial gains — we had retained the Commissioner and protected the tax regime. Most important, however, from my point of view approximately two weeks before the referendum was held I received a written undertaking from the Government, in the form of a letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, that Ireland would oppose any attempt to create a Europe-wide munitions industry for export and commit itself to continuing to highlight the human rights of civilians in areas of armed conflict. On balance, that was enough for me to change my mind and I make no apologies for campaigning against the first time and for this time.
The atmosphere outside the House today and on the airwaves is like that which preceded the French Revolution. We are regarded as self-centred, self-appointed aristocrats who are uncaring and disinterested. I fear the wheels of the tumbrils are beginning to turn. I am not going to open up the case of the Ceann Comhairle but I will offer this little piece of advice. There are a few elderly Senators such as I who remember when I made political charges against the then Cathaoirleach, charges which he was wise enough to know I could sustain. However, I was a little brat and people looked forward to the opportunity of putting me in my box. I was hauled before a very undemocratic committee of inquiry to which I said I would go but only if I were allowed to cross examine and introduce witnesses etc. The final point was that the Cathaoirleach could not be judge and jury. He could not sit in the chair during an investigation of his own conduct. I respectfully suggest to the Ceann Comhairle that he take the same decision because my view was sustained by the High Court. That was a legal precedent and the Ceann Comhairle would be most unwise to chair an inquiry into his own case.
On this matter, I disagree totally with Senator O’Sullivan about trying to charge large amounts of money to the press for freedom of information searches. These may be very uncomfortable for some of us — I am sure they are — and sometimes the facts are wildly misinterpreted by the journalists who seek them. However, they are perfectly entitled to make the searches and trying to charge them excessively for this is mean-spirited, against the freedom of the press and completely wrong.
I am very glad to see my colleague, Senator Ivana Bacik, in the House. I am torn because it grieves me that she is now on the Labour Party benches.

An Cathaoirleach: Yes, yes.

Senator David Norris: She will be greatly missed here.

An Cathaoirleach: This is not relevant to the Order of Business.

Senator David Norris: It is very relevant, if I may, with the greatest respect, contradict the Cathaoirleach.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has contradicted me enough already.

Senator David Norris: I hope Senator Bacik will take a seat in the Government to come and that she will be made Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the tradition of Nora Owen from Fine Gael and Máire Geoghegan Quinn from Fianna Fáil. I believe she will be outstanding in that role.

NORRIS TO SUPPORT YES ON LISBON

NORRIS TO SUPPORT YES ON LISBON

29 September 2009

Senator David Norris said today

“In the first Lisbon Referendum I voted and campaigned against acceptance. This was because of my strong concern about the developments of a munitions industry in Europe for export. My repeated questions to Government about the European Armaments Group/European Defence Agency were consistently stone-walled.

This time the issues are more finely balanced. Because of the determination of those of us in the No camp, we have secured a number of important advances including retention of our Commissioner, preservation of our independent tax regime and now at last I have personally received from the Government the assurance on military matters that I required.

Many Irish people have been honestly concerned about our position within the EU especially in the light of a possible rejection of the Treaty. There is no question whatever that Ireland could be forced out of the EU or have her membership downgraded on foot of a No vote. However it is true that the EU machine is lubricated by good will and that this good will has been very positively and skilfully fostered by our diplomats and representatives. To risk this good will turning to ill will that might subtly prejudice Ireland’s position would be a foolish step to take without very serious practical reasons.

After dialogue in recent weeks with Minister Micheál Martin and the Department of Foreign Affairs I have received the attached statement of Government policy which permits me to vote yes myself and recommend that my supporters should carefully consider doing so themselves. The most important elements of this communication from government are contained in the first and final paragraph where the Minister says:


1. “I am happy to give you the reassurance you request regarding Ireland’s position on an EU munitions industry. We would have no interest in supporting any efforts to develop a European munitions industry for export. The Lisbon Treaty does not contemplate any such policy initiative or make any provision for movement in that direction. Ireland would indeed resist any pressure which might be exercised in future by any Member State to take the Union down such a route, which would, of course, require a unanimous decision in the unlikely event that any such move were ever to be contemplated at EU level.

2. “On another matter in which I know you take an interest, I would like to assure you that the promotion and protection of human rights – including those of children and women affected by armed conflict – are integrated fully into the planning and conduct of the EU’s civilian and military missions. An outstanding example is the mission in Chad, which throughout its mandate
made a real contribution to protecting civilians in danger, in particular refugees and displaced persons affected by the crisis in neighbouring Darfur. The mission’s patrols deterred attacks against the civilian population, facilitated the activities of humanitarian workers and also contributed to protecting the staff of the UN and humanitarian organisations. Support for human rights in areas of armed conflict is an important part of the Government’s overall approach to human rights, peace-building and development issues.”


I am returning today from the Middle East in order to take part in the final stages of the debate and to vote Yes to Lisbon.

Senator David Norris