Senator David Norris - My Blog

Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010) - Committee Stage 4th March 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:51:00 +0000

Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010)- Committee Stage - 4th March 2010.
SECTION 3.

An Cathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 6 to 8, inclusive, 12, 13, 28 and 32 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator David Norris: I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

“ ’bioethanol’ shall only be deemed to constitute a biofuel in the case of ethyl alcohol ex CN (Combined nomenclature) sub-heading Taric code 2207 1000 with an alcohol content of at least 99 per cent volume the properties of which comply at least the requirements set in document EN 15376:2007 or any subsequent revisions to this document by the EU Committee for Standardisation CEN;”.

This is a series of related amendments which go right to the heart of the matter on which I have been lobbied effectively by a commercial company. I think the Minister of State will agree that in the current economic circumstances it is important that we foster and encourage potential indigenous industrial development. What we are looking for is a level playing field. It is similar to the position on Brazilian beef. I happen to love Brazil. Its people are very charming. It is a very beautiful place and I have been there on a number of occasions. Therefore, I am not anti-Brazilian, but we need a level playing field for those involved in our own industry. We have seen the agitation of farmers on the rules pertaining to beef production. We face a similar situation where the possible development of an indigenous industry may be stymied by the absence from the Bill of certain measures concerning tariffs which would bring us into line with at least eight other European countries which have introduced similar legislation. They have provided for such tariffs to create a level playing field.

Some of the language used is unattractive - natured and undenatured. “Undenatured” is one of the most ugly words I have ever come across, but, regrettably, it appears to be necessary to describe some of the technical processes involved. Undenatured or naturally produced bioethanol is the equivalent of a kind of poteen; additives are included to dilute it and so on. It is also sometimes needed for certain chemical processes and so forth. However, the transport of undenatured ethanol is a standard international practice. There is nothing against it; it is not dangerous. Therefore, there is no technical argument against it. To secure the type of investment required, which is very significant, it is essential that our domestic legislation mirrors the European legislation of which I have spoken. Sweden applies these tariffs to Brazilian ethanol, as do Belgium, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Austria and Spain. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment and to get involved in direct discussions with the agencies that wish to introduce this type of manufacturing into this country.

The impact of this would be to secure jobs and to provide for the security of our bio-fuel requirements within the European Union. At present, we use some of the major oil companies, which bring it in from various countries around the world. That does not confer any real benefit on the Irish industrial community. There would also be the development of plant infrastructure, and 4% of our fossil fuel requirements would be replaced by this indigenously produced material, which is very environmentally friendly. A total of 100,000 tonnes of fuel would be produced as well as 110,000 tonnes of the basic materials for animal feed. In that regard we currently import soya from various countries, including Brazil. It will also produce 60,000 tonnes of CO2 gas, which we must import at present through the British Oxygen Company. The proposed plant would be located in Waterford and would be a major industrial development for the area. It would help to alleviate the economic distress being experienced in Waterford, particularly in the aftermath of the closure of companies such as Waterford Glass. That must be a major argument for the Government.

What is being proposed is the adoption of the quality standard technically known as EN15376 which is also applied to externally sourced ethanol outside the European Union. The standard represents 99% volume purity, anhydrous - without water - and is the recommended standard used by the majority of EU member states to prevent tariff engineering of undenatured ethanol outside the EU or in bonded warehouses. The difference in both standards, in the main, is the water content of approximately 3%. The Brazilians would prefer to denature their own ethanol outside EU borders or within bonded warehouses inside the EU. This essentially means a lower bioethanol production cost per litre while obtaining maximum price within the EU. In other words, it is a tax dodge. This benefits the Brazilian domestic industry, without having to maintain EU standards of production.

We are talking about an improved security of supply and the development, construction and operation of a €100 million bioethanol facility. This is in addition to the indirect support of approximately 1,000 jobs in the Waterford area, which is an economic blackspot. It would also create new opportunities for the agriculture sector after the ending of the production of sugar beet. There is a serious problem in agriculture with the decline in sheep and cattle prices. This development would have the spin-off effect of producing feed. There would be a significant tax contribution through PAYE, corporation tax, rates and VAT to the Exchequer while there would be import substitution of 110,000 tonnes of soya animal feed through the utilisation of the distillers dried grains with solubles, DDGS, by-product, a product which is highly sustainable both in terms of environmental performance and greenhouse gas emissions savings. Furthermore, there is a knock-on effect in Brazil. Ireland, of course, will be a small player in this and Brazil is an enormous country. However, everybody is aware of the appalling impact on the rainforest. Millions of acres are destroyed partly for the production of soya. The production of bioethanol in Brazil is also having an impact. There are many environmental and commercial reasons for considering this proposal.

There appears to be a perception that there are technical problems relating to the importation of undenatured Brazilian ethanol for fuel use. It must be denatured before it can be transported. All Brazilian ethanol is produced and exported in an undenatured state. The denaturant is added within the EU borders, prior to the duty point, depending on the requirements of the individual end users and their national regulations. It is denatured as a result of European national customs requirements by adding a select number of additives listed in EN15376. Transport of denatured ethanol is rare and only happens if the end user requires it. Shipping undenatured ethanol has nothing to do with technical feasibility; it is a standard practice around the globe.

With regard to the water content in ethanol, EU oil and car companies do not want too much water in the ethanol. The Brazilians always complain about this and say that the standard is a non-tariff barrier. However, there has been an international inquiry into this issue and a tripartite committee was established, comprising membership from the United States, Brazil and the European Union. Last year, the official conclusions were reached and they were unanimous that the water content issue was not a barrier to trade. The Minister will be able to possess himself of this report.

There have been doubts about the economic viability of an Irish bio-fuel plant. There is the issue of economies of scale but this has been well researched and is supported by other major European, particularly German, chemical combines. The plant size suggested is optimised to match both Irish demand for fuel ethanol and the capacity to produce feedstuff. As an island, Ireland has a number of competitive advantages over other locations to make the plant viable. I accept that the economic viability of an Irish plant is an issue to concern the promoter. It is a market risk for the developer, but the developer will take this risk. I am asking that the Seanad create the market conditions through legislation that will enable these investors and potential Irish industrialists to develop it.

There are benefits with regard to carbon dioxide as well. We import all our carbon dioxide through the British Oxygen Company. I recall seeing its lorries travelling through Dublin transporting cylinders and my cousin was the company’s chief engineer at one time. The fact that we import all this gas makes CO2 capture at the plant viable and will provide the company with an additional revenue stream. It currently costs €60 per tonne in transport charges alone to import this gas into Ireland so it will be a significant revenue stream. The CO2 capture also greatly enhances the environmental performance of the plant. One of the other by-products is distillers dried grains with solubles, DDGS. It is a valuable by-product and is a direct substitute for imported animal feed. Once again, it would mean the replacement of imported material with Irish-produced material.

I have absolutely no commercial interest in this proposal. I merely met the people concerned but I considered the proposal so valuable I put forward these amendments. Ireland’s production costs per tonne are competitive within Europe. This is partly because we have the highest wheat yields in Europe due to the longer growing period. There are various other points concerning price and the impact at the fuel pumps which can be dealt with.

(12 o’clock)
In terms of sustainability, the demand for land in Brazil, in particular, has been driven by the increased demand for soya, sugar cane and beef. It can be expected that an increased demand for bioethanol worldwide to fulfil bio-fuel obligations will automatically create further pressure to convert rainforest to agricultural land. Saying bioethanol is produced using sustainable methods does not guarantee that the rainforest will not be knocked indirectly by beef farms as a result of an increased demand for sugar cane. As I said, the scale of destruction is absolutely vast. Millions of acres have been destroyed. The demand for bioethanol will increase and the question is where should it be produced. I made the argument that it should be produced here to generate jobs and very valuable materials. If the Government decides not to apply the tariff which eight other European countries have successfully applied and in so doing so secured their indigenous industries, it may be unknowingly promoting the destruction of the rainforest by creating increased demand which would be contrary to its intentions. I ask the Minister of State to ensure a level playing field which would require no investment on the part of the Government. It would at least open up the possibility of securing the development of a significant industry in what is an economic black spot.

I ask that Seanad Éireann employ all of its forces in requesting the Minister of State to take this matter very seriously, on which I believe I will receive support from other sections of the House. There would be no cost to the Exchequer. The Government would simply need to create the market conditions, whereby we could develop a viable, indigenous industry and give employment to our own people during this critical and difficult period.

Deputy Conor Lenihan: I propose to respond to amendments Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 28 and 32 together. I thank Senators Norris, O’Reilly, Walsh, McCarthy, O’Toole and John Paul Phelan for contributing to the debate on this matter. I assure them the Minister is very much on board in relation to the spirit of the proposed amendments. The national bio-fuel obligation will incentivise the sustainable growth of the indigenous bio-fuel market, support indigenous bio-fuel producers and expand production. The EU sustainability criteria will also provide a competitive advantage for Irish and other EU producers by ensuring non-EU imports meet strict environmental guidelines. We must, however, remain compliant with EU and WTO guidelines on trade, meaning we cannot restrict imports unfairly.

The amendments largely suggest Ireland should mimic the fuel standards in place in other member states, including Germany and France, which serve as an effective barrier to outright competition from imports outside the European Union. Essentially, there are two separate tariff codes – one for denatured or industrial and the other for food grade or agricultural. The latter is significantly higher at 19.2 cents per litre versus 10.2 cents per litre. Many member states have done this with the explicit aim of protecting domestic production such as in the Germans’ bio-fuel quota Act and the French legislative equivalent.

The European Commission would have to be notified under Directive 98/34/EC as this type of initiative would be deemed to be a technical regulation. From a national perspective, the only substantial problem with the course of action is that the United Kingdom has not adopted such a measure. Given that we import 60% of our road transport fuel from the United Kingdom, such a measure could have the potential to substantially increase costs to Irish consumers, theoretically, as they would have to be supplied with a different blend of bioethanol.

The fact this standard is in widespread use across Europe means much of European production capacity is already geared towards producing the same. The bioethanol in use in Ireland probably already meets this standard. As such the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, is considering this with a view to making an amendment in the Dáil. We are in the process of notifying the Commission about this change, as required. This is known as a technical regulation. Once notification is lodged, we can then make the amendment in the Dáil. We would prefer to do it on Report Stage in the Seanad but because of the timing factors involved, it will arise on Second Stage in the Dáil. It is key to ensure the consumer will not be adversely affected by cost increases stemming from any such measure in this area. The concept of a deferred introduction is one the Minister is considering in that regard. I do not propose, therefore, to accept the amendments on the grounds that it would be pre-emptive to do so. I do not propose to accept the amendment to the Title on the grounds that it already deals with this issue in so far it is possible or appropriate to do so.

I thank Senators for their contributions. The spirit and content of their amendments will be approximated to the Bill when it reaches Second Stage in the Dáil.

Senator Joe O’Toole: One cannot make amendments on Second Stage.

Senator David Norris: It is perfectly clear we have won the argument in this House, a fact with which the Minister of State has agreed. There is universal support for the amendments and I am glad we have had the opportunity to table them. Will the Minister of State examine as urgently as possible any facility for accepting them in this House rather than in the Dáil, as the arguments for their acceptance was made here? The Seanad is always attacked for being redundant. This, however, is a damn good day’s work, creating the possibility of 1,000 jobs being created in an economic black spot. We have met all the scientific, environmental and agricultural arguments. It is important, therefore, that the amendments are introduced in the Seanad, even if it is by the use of a deferred date.

The Minister of State knows there have been erred calls for the abolition of this House, yet today there is a scandalous absence of press representation – I accept The Irish Times is probably watching on the monitor - for one of the most vital debates in which I have ever taken part, as it secures jobs. I have received correspondence from people across the country in despair, as they are losing their jobs and houses. Today the Seanad has done something positive. We did not call for another head on a plate, blood on the walls or guts on the carpet, which is the routine in Parliament.

On competition law and tariffs, I have referred to the unanimous report from the United States, Brazil and the European Union which answered that argument. Since eight countries – Senator John Paul Phelan has suggested there are more - have introduced tariffs, I do not see any reason we should kowtow to the British. We should get on with it and have the amendments accepted in this House. Will the Minister of State give the Official Report of the Committee Stage proceedings to the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, to highlight the unanimous approval for the amendments and inquire as to why it is not possible to have them passed in Seanad Éireann?

Order of Business - 2nd March 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:44:00 +0000

Order of Business - 2nd March 2010
Senator David Norris: A group of people, some of whom are hard of hearing, visited the Oireachtas a week ago. They contacted me afterwards to point out, quite reasonably, that churches, cinemas and theatres in this city have hearing loops to enable people with hearing difficulties to hear what is going on, so therefore it seems strange that such a facility is not available in this Parliament. I ask the Leader to check whether this matter can be raised at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

Senator Rónán Mullen: We have loopers all right, but no loops.

An Cathaoirleach: No interruption, please.

Senator David Norris: I support my colleagues on both sides of the House who have asked for a debate on banking. We need to monitor the NAMA situation. We need to counter the misinformation that is being put out. The EU has not sanctioned or given the green light to NAMA.

Senator Terry Leyden: Really?

Senator David Norris: It just has not given it the red light. We need to look at this again. The US had a similar situation with TARP I. They voted it down and brought in TARP II. We know that the loan amounts are grossly inflated. We are putting in €77 billion. The value of the loans is less than €37 billion. We are told we need to spend a huge amount of taxpayers’ money to provide a functioning bank service. The bank system is not functioning. Loans are not being provided to productive businesses. People who want to switch their mortgages are forbidden from doing so. We really need to examine taking a lower amount of €40 billion to write down the bondholders by €20 billion and put in a capital injection of €20 billion. Then one may find oneself in the same current NAMA position on which we are spending so much money. It is important to discuss these vital matters in the House.

Order of Business - 4th March 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:44:00 +0000

Order of Business - 4th March 2010
Senator David Norris: I regret once again we are not breaking for lunch. I will not amend the Order of Business because of it but it is a pity. We are entitled, as human beings, to some kind of decent treatment. I have no difficulty whatever with our salaries being cut but I would appreciate if we had decent facilities in this House.

My secretary is in every morning at 7.30 a.m. She does not take lunch but has an apple. She often works until 6 p.m. and after but we have run out of the overtime allowance. I am here every day and I am delighted we are clocking in. At least people will know those of us who are here. It would be very refreshing if they could monitor the doings of the House to see who contributes and all the rest of it.

Since the development of electronic communication, there is a flood of communications every day.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Yes, every day.

Senator David Norris: In the recession, there are people whose homes are under threat, children are sick, have planning difficulties or are in debt which must be answered. I never get to bed until after midnight. Then I have to listen to cheap shots on the wireless claiming we were in the Seanad for a day and a quarter and get paid for doing nothing. I bitterly resent and reject it. I do not mind what we get paid but I want the facilities to do the job. At present, we are being asked to make bricks without straw.

I support Senator Frances Fitzgerald that it is horrifying there are 20 reports on children in care awaiting publication. I must signal the warning, however, that it is terribly important that in intervening in this area we make absolutely certain we do not prejudice the welfare and rights of the other family members concerned. I particularly think of two small children who will probably learn from their schoolmates today of the tragic circumstances of their mother’s death. In these matters we need sensitivity.

Prohibition of Depleted Uranium Weapons Bill 2009 - Second Stage - 3rd March 2010.

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:41:00 +0000

Prohibition of Depleted Uranium Weapons Bill 2009 - Second Stage - 3rd March 2010.
Senator David Norris: I compliment Senator Boyle and his colleagues on this legislation. It is very important and I welcome the fact that there is a general welcome from the House for this. It always surprises me that, when we confront catastrophes such as the situation in Chile and Haiti, people do not realise there are enough catastrophes without mankind deliberately inflicting other disasters on itself. I mention this because I was involved in the campaign for a ban on cluster bombs. I raised it in this House where we had a good special debate, and I also introduced some material though the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. The situation is urgent because I have reports that traces of depleted uranium have been found in some of the children affected by the conflict in Gaza. The Minister of State is sensitive to this issue and is aware of the problems. That is deeply worrying. I was in Iraq before the latest American adventure and even then I met people who claimed they had been affected by depleted uranium. Their claims appear to have had some justification.

Uranium is a naturally occurring element but, as Senator Ó Brolcháin said, this is a by-product of the nuclear industry. It was first manufactured in the 1940s when the United States and the former Soviet Union began a nuclear weapons programme. They discovered it was useful for protecting tanks. They began coating tanks with this material. The Americans discovered it was impossible to penetrate and they developed new weapons technology. We are now confronted with a product of the Second World War and the arms race. People are taking this increasingly seriously. Costa Rica has just introduced legislation along these lines. Seventeen countries have this kind of weapon: Britain, the United States, France, Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Greece, Turkey, Bahrain, Oman, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan, Thailand, China, India and Taiwan. The British company, BAE, was producing depleted uranium shells for the British forces until 2003. I am glad to say it has ceased production but some stockpiles are left. There is much highly technical material in this area and I am not a qualified scientist. In addition, I have had a very busy day and my mind is reeling from reading this material. That said, I think I have understood sufficient of it for me to be concerned about the existence of these weapons and very glad Senator Boyle and his colleagues have introduced the Bill.

The Bill would make it illegal to “test, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, sell, deploy, retain or transfer, directly or indirectly, uranium ammunition, uranium armour-plate or other uranium weapons to anyone”. It would also make it illegal “acquire or dispose of pre-products for development and production of uranium weapons”. Legislation was debated in one of our European neighbours, Belgium, and concerns were expressed lest the text affect some American military installations. I would be very happy if it did so negatively affect the American installations. I compliment Senator Boyle on the definitions which appear to resolve what may have been problematic in other countries. The Bill states:

“Uranium weapon” means a mechanism which serves to destroy or damage objects and uses uranium in its mode of action. Excluded from this definition are weapons that incorporate uranium and whose primary tactical purpose in this incorporation is the production, flux, or enhancement, of nuclear fission or fusion.

This is a form of nuclear waste and this links it to the civilian nuclear energy, as my newly elected colleague said. Nowadays, considering the crisis facing the planet, we cannot completely close our minds to the possibility of nuclear power. It is rather hypocritical of us to be prepared to use the interconnector to introduce electricity that is generated by nuclear capacity, yet turn our faces against nuclear power. That has some echoes of the abortion situation, where we do not allow it in this country but simply export it. In this case we are importing energy.

Depleted uranium is a chemically toxic and radioactive compound used in armour piercing munitions because of its very high density. It is 1.7 times denser than lead, giving these weapons increased range and penetrative power. I bracket these weapons with white phosphorus and cluster bombs. I would like to see white phosphorus banned; it is an appalling weapon. Flechettes are another form of fiendish device. We must keep reviewing these weapons. Depleted uranium is used extensively and in landmines. It was used in the Gulf War, in Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo and in the war in Iraq in 2003 by the United States and the United Kingdom. It was also used in Afghanistan in 2001.

The real problem is the dangerous and continuing quality of depleted uranium. When burned it produces an oxide dust that has no natural or historical analogue. This toxic and radioactive dust is composed of two oxides, one insoluble, the other sparingly soluble. The distribution of particle sizes includes sub-micron particles that are readily inhaled into and retained by the lungs. From the lungs uranium compounds are deposited in the lymph nodes, bones, brain and testes. Hard targets hit by DU penetrators are surrounded by this dust and surveys suggest that it can travel many kilometres when re-suspended, as is likely in arid climates such as the desert. The dust can then be inhaled or ingested by civilians and the military alike. In other words, it does not discriminate. The lymph nodes, bones, brain and testes are prime candidates for carcinogenic material and, therefore, cancer is a serious danger. It is believed these weapons are the cause of sharp increases in some forms of cancer such as breast cancer and lymphoma and this is substantially documented. It is also worrying in the Balkans because there are suggestions that despite the fact DU is only sometimes soluble, the corroding penetrators have been held to be likely to affect ground-water. That is a continuing and serious problem.

The chief radiological hazard from Uranium 238 is alpha radiation. When inhaled or ingested, alpha radiation is the most damaging form of ionising radiation. I note the implications of some investments of large capitalist groups. For example, the Royal Bank of Scotland is heavily involved in financing the use of this material and its Ulster Bank subsidiary bears looking at. Bodies such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection put themselves forward. They are not pure, as they are too closely related to some of these big businesses. In addition, they use average male body format when they calculate the impact of DU, ignoring completely the fact that ionising radiation has a much more substantial and negative impact on pregnant women and children. I would be careful about these groups with grand sounding names.

As U238 decays into its daughter products thorium and protactinium, both beta and gamma radiation are released, increasing the radiation burden further. Therefore, DU particles must be considered as a dynamic mixture of radioactive isotopes. Inside the body alpha radiation is incredibly disruptive. The heavy, highly charged particles leave a trail of ionised free radicals in their wake, disrupting finely tuned cellular processes. Like many other heavy metals, such as lead, chromium, nickel and mercury, uranium exposure can be damaging to health, particularly the kidney and other soft tissue areas. Recent studies in hamsters found that these products make it more likely that the DNA will be repaired incorrectly, which leads to replicated errors, and this is a classic formula for carcinogensis.

As a result it is not entirely surprising that the UN General Assembly passed a resolution highlighting serious health concerns over DU and, in May 2008, 94% of MEPs in the European Parliament strengthened four previous calls for a moratorium by calling for a DU ban treaty in a wide-ranging resolution. I compliment my colleagues for treating this serious and sometimes technical subject with the concern it deserves and for presenting this important Bill to the House.

Order of Business - 3rd March 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:36:00 +0000

Order of Business - 3rd March 2010
Senator David Norris: I support Senator O’Toole’s comments about the BAI. It is extraordinary that it should bring forward a proposal for a 30% increase on its 2009 budget. Many small radio stations are on the margins and it is peculiar that the body charged with the guardianship of their interests should place them at risk. It is a little like upward only rent reviews.

Will the Leader keep the House informed of developments in the investigation into possible Garda leaks relating to the forced resignation of Deputy Trevor Sargent? If, as the newspapers are reporting, the information was maliciously released by a source within the Garda, it should concern every decent and honourable parliamentarian. This would not be the first time for such an event to happen. During the 1997 presidential campaign a Garda file on the brother of one of the candidates, Mr. Dónal de Róiste, was released at a time when it was calculated to do damage. This is serious because cannot have the police force interfering in the political life of the country.

As we meet, Ezra Nawi is appearing in the High Court in Jerusalem for the hearing of an appeal against his conviction for an assault on two Israeli soldiers during an illegal demolition of Palestinian housing, despite the fact that the newsreel film showed him clearly taking stones from some of the Palestinian protestors while saying, “This is a peaceful protest”. He disappeared inside the house being demolished; two soldiers went in after him and he emerged dishevelled saying, “Please, do not beat me,” yet the judge, in a remarkable echo of the Denning judgment, preferred not to face the appalling vista that the police were lying, even though other policeman had previously lied in similar cases. This is a campaign, as described yesterday by a colleague, “to silence a democratic voice” in one of the only democracies in the Middle East.

Order of Business - 25th February 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:54:00 +0000

Order of Business - 25th February 2010
Senator David Norris: I join colleagues in asking for a debate on the financial system but it should cover the economy generally and not be confined to the banks. I walked through the Hibernian Way and Creation Arcade on may to Leinster House earlier. Approximately 50% of the shops are closed and the remainder have sales with reductions ranging from 50% to 70%. That hits one when one physically sees it. I commend the President and Dr. Martin McAleese on their initiative to seek ideas for jobs. This is positive and creative.

11 o’clock
I am astonished to hear Members say Mr. Michael O’Leary should be supported in his efforts to evict Aer Lingus. He is a very colourful, flamboyant, brilliant and successful businessman but he is a robber baron and it would be astonishing in terms of financial morality if we were to stand over a situation where contracts, leases and so on could be just torn up willy-nilly because jobs which may or may not be there are dangled in a cruel fashion in front of a hungry workfoce. This is the kind of thing we witnessed at Shannon Airport where we were prepared to give into financial gangsterism and sacrifice all our principles of morality and decency. I will oppose this, although I admire the business enterprise of Mr. O’Leary.

The House should congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs on managing to get into Gaza. He is a courageous man. I have been their in similar circumstances and it was not pleasant. Apart from the appalling conditions in which people are living that I had to witness, I was in an UNRWA van with both sides shooting across us. There was thin metal between me and death. The Minister should meet Hamas representatives. The peace process in Northern Ireland was successful because we overcame our revulsion at bombers and gunmen and we dealt directly with people. This is not the same. A legitimate government has been driven into a corner. It behaved badly but, by goodness, it is nothing compared to the crimes being perpetrated against the people of Gaza.

Motion on Special Educational Needs - 24th February 2010.

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:53:00 +0000

Motion on Special Educational Needs - 24th February 2010
Senator David Norris: First I wish to place this in a context. At the outset of this economic crisis, I warned that the Government was completely wrong to dismantle every agency that spoke out on behalf of the vulnerable. It did so and this kind of thing is the result. However, I do not believe that all virtue or human feeling resides in this House and I know my former colleague from this House, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe, to be a decent and caring man. This does not mean the policies always are decent or caring because they may in fact not be. Regardless of what one might think, the loss of 1,200 special needs assistants is a quite extraordinary cull and must be explained. It appears as though there has been an attempt to explain this in economic terms, which can be highly problematic because these are the most vulnerable people and I do not believe the full case has been made.

I wish to say something in particular about St. Joseph’s school, Balrothery, at which there has been a quite extraordinary and devastating reduction of 66%. In his contribution, the Minister asked an extraordinary question of Senator Healy Eames. He asked Senator Healy Eames:

whether she really believes that a child who is developing independence and confidence should continue to receive support he or she does not need. Might that inhibit the child’s further development?

That was a most extraordinary phrase, at which I turned round and looked at some of the parents and teachers from St. Joseph’s school, Balrothery, in the Gallery. If the Minister is good at reading body language, he will have read the answer. It was a grotesque question as of course the children need it. I was very glad that Senator——

Senator Cecilia Keaveney: That is totally——

Senator David Norris: Shut up for a minute.

Senator Cecilia Keaveney: ——unfair.

Senator Ned O’Sullivan: That is out of order.

An Cathaoirleach: It is totally wrong to say “shut up”.

Senator David Norris: I listened to Senator Ormonde——

Senator Ann Ormonde: That was out of order.

Senator David Norris: It was not a bit out of order. I am fed up with this kind of thing. We have a short amount of time and there are real issues here. I am not attacking the other side, but——

Senator Ned O’Sullivan: He is not allowed to tell a Senator to shut up.

Senator David Norris: ——I do not appreciate this attempt to waste time.

An Cathaoirleach: Telling anyone in this Parliament to shut up is——

Senator David Norris: I will leave it to the Cathaoirleach, but it is not a bit unparliamentary.

An Cathaoirleach: It is unparliamentary.

Senator David Norris: I meant it and they should because that kind of behaviour disgraces them.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: It is outrageous.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris would not like anyone to say it to him.

Senator Ned O’Sullivan: It would not work, either.

Senator David Norris: It would not bother me in the slightest. I have had a lot worse said to me, I can assure the Cathaoirleach. I am not so thin skinned. I acknowledge the fact that people on the Government side of the House are raw because there is pressure. This is a difficult time, difficult decisions must be taken and so on, but I like the fact that Senator Ormonde stated she will not stand over a situation in which special needs assistants, SNAs, are withdrawn from where they are needed. If one asks the parents, teachers and professionals whether SNAs are needed, they will tell one. It should not just be the people who are sent in by various Departments, as it depends on their expertise. They might be sent in to take part in the cull.

This is a serious situation and it was heartening that Senators O’Toole and Ó Brolcháin appeared to be moving towards a common ground in trying to assert pressure in support of the Minister. Many of these moves come from the Department of Finance. That is its remit. However, we should all stand over a situation in which people are not forced out of their work.

Had the motion been worded slightly differently and the word “failure” not been included, accommodating it would have been easier for the Government. It is not always helpful to discuss failure. The motion calls on the Minister to publish the National Council for Special Education’s advice on this issue. Points that must be considered are that he has indicated the advice is in the process of publication independently of him and that he does not have it. This was a reasonable comment to make and I was glad to be able to hear it. He was then asked to provide a timeline——

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator’s time is up.

Senator David Norris: I want a bit of injury time because I was heckled by the Government side.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris will be taking from Senator Prendergast.

Senator David Norris: I will not. If she has any sense, she will keep talking past her time.

An Cathaoirleach: I will not allow it.

Senator Cecilia Keaveney: This is disrespect for the Chair.

Senator David Norris: The Cathaoirleach might face a series of challenges because this situation is ridiculous.

An Cathaoirleach: I call for Senator Norris to finish and to allow Senator Prendergast contribute. Please respect the Chair.

Senator David Norris: I will finish on this point.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator cannot.

Senator David Norris: The Cathaoirleach is now interrupting me. I would like the time that I have been allocated democratically to speak on this issue. It is making a farce of the whole matter that we are all treated like this.

Senator Cecilia Keaveney: Playing to the gallery.

Senator David Norris: That is fact coming from Senator Keaveney. I will let Senator Prendergast in because I am sure she will make a compelling case. I am also sure she will get her full allocation of time.

An Cathaoirleach: That is fine and she will.

Statements on the Report of Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children - 24 February 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:41:00 +0000

Statments on the Report of Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children - 24 February 2010
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State and applaud this decision. Partial though it is, it is an improvement. We are starting from a low base. The Minister of State in his speech rehearsed criticism from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. When reporting on the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1998, it stated that our approach to children’s rights seemed to be somewhat fragmented. This was diplomatic language for saying that we had done a bad job. The committee also indicated that our welfare practices and policies do not adequately reflect the child rights-based approach enshrined in the Constitution. In fact, matters are worse than that. It is not just that the old Victorian idea about children being seen and not heard was widespread, an idea that children were, in some sense, the property of their parents and were treated as such, just as women were treated as chattels. Rather, it is also the appalling situation in which both church and State stood deeply condemned for their complete dereliction of their responsibility for looking after the welfare of children. Children were not regarded as significant or as having any right to a voice. They were serially abused, degraded, humiliated, physically tortured and interfered with sexually. This is the base from which we are starting.

A number of years ago in the House, Senator O’Toole and I advocated the Stay Safe programme to protect children in schools. We were attacked widely by elements in society, the voices of which are still being heard. The reason for the attack was that the family, as an institution, was regarded as some kind of sacred shibboleth, the interests of which were placed above those of the child. This was an horrendous absence of any type of moral value. It is always wrong to place an institution above an individual. The individual feels, bleeds and suffers. The institution is created for the welfare of the individual. I go right back to the Bible for this point. Christ was reproved for just grinding an ear of corn between his fingers. The self-righteous hypocrites of the New Testament, who are still with us, accused him of working on and breaking the Sabbath. He made the point that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. This is why it is so important that we recognise the humanity of children, which has been done in this amendment to the Constitution.

I compliment our former colleague in this House, Deputy O’Rourke, who was a forthright and clear Leader of the Seanad. With great skill, she moderated the committee’s discussions. It is a tribute to her and all the committee members, some of whom are present, that an agreement was reached on a sensitive matter. It is useful that the agreement has the strength of the support of a committee drawn from all the political parties in the Houses. I welcome this development.

The Minister of State has indicated that voices such as those to which I referred are still active in our community. I would quote him if I could find a copy of his speech. The copy I have is not mine. He referred to people being concerned about the intervention of the State and the lowering of the threshold at which that takes place, thereby infringing the rights of the family in some way. I have also heard these opinions, but I deplore them and those who expressed them. I question their representative nature. I have heard representatives from the so-called Iona Institute speaking on this subject and advocating the rights of the family and the parent. I heard similar people when we raised the issue of fathers sexually abusing their children, at which time we were told that we were in some way interfering with the family. The family needs to be interfered with in those circumstances. It is right and proper that it should be.

The Iona Institute has every right to exist and express its view. However, let us be clear. It is an unelected, unrepresentative group of reactionary, right-wing, religiously motivated people. They have an undue prominence in this debate. Contributions to this debate should be proportionate. It is most unwise to give oxygen, in the media and other places, to this very nasty view. When I heard one of their spokespeople on the radio the other day I had an instant sense of déjà vu. I was thinking of my wonderful old friend and inspiration, the late Dr. Noël Browne, the mother and child scheme and the way in which the church in this country objected to the sustenance given out to nursing mothers and their children because it thought this was an interference and an undermining of its authority. Once again, the Church did not give a damn about the welfare of the mothers and their children. It was interested in its own power. I would like to think those days have gone from this society and that we will bravely support the rights of children.

We have had a number of cases like the Kilkenny incest case. In 1993 the Honourable Ms Justice Catherine McGuinness asked for this kind of referendum.

I would welcome the suggestion implicit in the wording that we would insert in the Constitution that glorious phrase from the 1916 Proclamation that the State cherishes “all the children of the State equally”. I understand that is one suggestion and I hope it is taken on board. Most citizens of the country believe the phrase is already in the Constitution so let us satisfy them and put it there. Let us also remember that the word “children” did not mean people under a certain age. It meant all the people of the State because we are all the children of the State.

We need also to take our courage in our hands and look at Article 41 and this constrictive definition of the family. It does not suit the 21st century. We should look at that again, particularly if it inhibits the application of the proposal.

With regard to the question of adoption, I hope the disgraceful moral ignorance and neglect of the Government in the civil partnership legislation, where the rights of children of gay couples are ignored totally, will be addressed with the support of this proposed amendment. It will give the children some rights, at least. I know I am speaking to a sympathetic audience in this House, and in particular to the Minister of State whose decency I well understand. The Minister of State and virtually everyone in this House must agree with me that it is a nonsense that gay people can legally adopt children as single individuals, whether they are biological parents or not, but if the adopting parent dies the child is left with no rights whatever. Perhaps this will be some kind of half measure to address that.

When the civil partnership Bill comes to this House I will be attempting to amend it in order to protect the rights of children and I will be calling the bluff of the Government to make sure it is serious when it says the rights of children are paramount. It is not the rights of parents, gay or otherwise, but the rights and welfare of children which are important. I can say that with some background because I was responsible for the section of the Child Care Act which introduced the guardian ad litem principle, in the aftermath of the Maria Colwell case, in order to give a voice to children, who must be heard.

Order of Business - 24th February 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:38:00 +0000

Order of Business - 24th February 2010.
Senator David Norris: This House is being increasingly treated with contempt and a classic example was last night when I raised a very significant matter about the economy of the country and serious violations and infringements of liquidity regulations in a consistent, deliberate and repeated manner. The answer I received from the Minister of State was that there was no ministerial responsibility. If there is not, why did the Cathaoirleach allow it because that is the test it must pass? That was a lie. I impugned the reputation of the Office of the Financial Regulator and it was suggested to me that I should bring it up with the regulator. What kind of puerile nonsense is this? It is an insult to the House and I demand that this sort of behaviour should stop.

I agree with Senator Fitzgerald about the symphysiotomy situation. It is appalling. It is a cruel, barbarous and inappropriate treatment. I was shocked to hear on both programmes that it was motivated by sectarian religious impulses and I would like to know a little more about that. If it is true, it needs to be explored further and exposed. I would like to know more about Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda. Every time there is a scandal or a risk to health it seems to be at the centre of it. Why? Let us have an inquiry into that.

I was not impressed by the representative of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Some years ago, it was asked by the same Minster for a report. It gave one page which was as contemptuous as the way in which this House was treated last night. It dismissed everything, and it was incorrect for it to do so. It was wrong about it. This operation has not been current in any other European country since 1944 and since the discovery of sulphonamide drugs. It is practised sometimes in sub-Saharan Africa in the bush because of difficulties such as a lack of medical supervision and so on. It is appalling to think that 1,500 operations were carried out. It is not a matter of one or two operations. It was a deliberate and consistent practice which was known and ignored by the professional body and now we are sending it back to them. They are not fit to be charged with this. It should be a fully independent inquiry. Every spokesperson on both programmes defended the practice in some——
An Cathaoirleach: Senator——
Senator David Norris: Sorry Cathaoirleach but I will continue——
An Cathaoirleach: No, no——
Senator David Norris: ——and you can throw me out if you like——
An Cathaoirleach: Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator David Norris: ——because I think this is a disgrace.
An Cathaoirleach: I call Senator Walsh. Senator Norris’s time is up.
Senator David Norris: We are trying to decide serious issues——
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris——
Senator David Norris: ——and we are not allowed to because of some puerile rule——
An Cathaoirleach: Your time is up.
Senator David Norris: ——for which the Leader of the House is directly responsible and I know that.
An Cathaoirleach: I ask Senator Norris to resume his seat. His time is up. He has had his two minutes. I call Senator Walsh.
Senator David Norris: There is no democracy in this House——
An Cathaoirleach: There is democracy in this House.
Senator David Norris: ——because every section of the House wants it and there is one person standing up against it and it is the Leader of the House, Senator Donie Cassidy. If we had two hours every day it would be absolutely appropriate and I want this

Adjournment Debate on Financial Regulations - 23rd February 2010.

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:36:00 +0000

Adjournment Debate on Financial Regulation - 23rd February 2010

Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Áine Brady. As she may know, although my principal interest is in human rights, I contribute in a positive and constructive manner from time to time to the debate on economics. My positive attitude, however, does not mean that I am loath to be critical of either individuals or systems, as will be seen from a very significant case I raised last year concerning financial irregularities and the subsequent widespread cover-up. The Adjournment matter I raised at that time achieved its aim by generating significant publicity and helping to re-open an inquiry, although the matter is not yet concluded.

On this occasion I was approached by a senior financial executive from one of the European banks with its Irish headquarters in the Irish Financial Services Centre. This man, a senior risk manager at the bank whose repeated warnings that liquidity had fallen disastrously short of the required levels went virtually unheeded, was eventually obliged to resign his position in order not to incriminate himself.

I had several further meetings with this man, whom I designate “Whistleblower”, including one where he was accompanied by a senior financial figure from another Irish institution who fully corroborated his story. I formed a view that Whistleblower was a man of integrity and courage. He showed me a communication from the offending bank which stated that his allegations were false and defamatory and threatened legal action on foot of a particular letter dated 8 April 2008 addressed to senior management. It is open to the Minister to examine this matter, including the role or, indeed, significant failure of the Financial Regulator in this case as well as seeking discovery of all relevant documentation. This is what I now demand that he do in the interests of restoring the reputation of our banking system and meting out justice for Whistleblower, who behaved honourably, and to the banking institution, which has not.

Liquidity and the perception of a positive liquidity position is essential for the life blood of banking to flow. The crucial matter is whether the asset and liability side of a firm’s balance sheet can be realised and to what degree its assets would cover debts or obligations in the case of the dissolution or liquidation of the company. There are regulations proposed by central authorities that the ratio between liquid assets and liability would not be allowed to fall below certain guidelines. It is a requirement in the eventuality that this happens that the Financial Regulator should be informed immediately. These regulations were introduced by the Financial Regulator following the accord of the Bank of International Settlements in Basel 2007 under which the liquidity ratio below which banks should not fall was 90% of liabilities. This is monitored daily.

Whistleblower, following a career in banking in German banks in Ireland, joined the named bank in mid-May 2007 just some months before the liquidity regulations came into force on 1 July 2007. He was quickly established as risk manager for the company and, therefore, was among those responsible for reporting any such breaches. Consequently, when or if the bank failed to meet its obligations, he would be among those who risked severe penalties.

From the commencement of the operation of the regulations in July 2007 until Whistleblower’s resignation in mid-September of the same year, several daily liquidity reports showed the bank to be well beneath the 90% threshold. Each time he expressed concern, he was convinced by the bank’s treasury manager, his own assistants and the bank’s chief executive officer that these liquidity breaches were only technical and were related to information technology difficulties of which he was not fully cognisant. In other words, he was assured from the very top of the bank that these were not real breaches, merely technical glitches in the computing system, and he was instructed by the chief executive officer that they should not be reported to the Financial Regulator.

There had already been tension between the treasury team at the bank and the risk manager, that is, Whistleblower. He had a precise and ordered view of the way the regulations should be applied and on several occasions reprimanded staff for leaving work, such as the documentation of a multi-million euro transaction, incomplete.

Whistleblower contacted The Irish Times and spoke to a reporter in the financial area. The reporter indicated that he was aware of the situation in the bank on foot of an anonymous e-mail from some other source. The e-mail apparently stated that the bank in question was in a state of chaos and that the auditors were threatening to withdraw their services.

Despite the fact that what Whistleblower described as high pressure tactics were used at the bank to inhibit him from reporting breaches on the grounds that they were merely technical, on one occasion in late July or early August 2007, a breach actually was reported. On this occasion, a letter was prepared which notified the Financial Regulator that the bank’s liquidity ratio stood at only 70% but promised to remedy the situation immediately. This is a very serious matter as the margin of appreciation allowed under the regulations is a mere 1%. This represented 20 times the allowable margin. The letter was hand delivered to the Financial Regulator by Whistleblower who received a receipt which is now in the possession of the bank. Thus is established a clear and unbroken chain of evidence implicating not only the bank but also the Financial Regulator.

So worried was Whistleblower that he contacted a well-known firm of financial software consultants in London to seek their help in rectifying the situation. This company, whose name I shall supply to the Minister of State, agreed and Whistleblower facilitated their on-line connection to the system in Dublin. Within a day or two of this connection being made, an expert from the company telephoned from London to say that their calculations showed that the relevant liquidity ratio was only 50%, another staggering 20% lower than the already dangerous and impermissible 20%. He intensified his attempts to resolve the situation at the bank but met with such resistance that on 13 September 2007, he signified his intention to resign by e-mail as follows:

Dear [...]

In view of yesterday’s discussions in your office which have once again highlighted the fact that the integrity of the information provided to me as a Manager is doubtful, it has become apparent that I am not in a position to fulfil my contractual obligations as Risk Manager at [X] Bank.

Therefore I regretfully wish to advise you that I am resigning from my position at this bank. Obviously I shall not be signing any report or document with immediate effect.

Under the terms of his severance, he remained technically an employee of the bank for the next month while his notice was worked out, although he did not attend the workplace. The bank attempted to persuade him to withdraw his resignation but he refused. Informants within the bank told him that on receipt of his resignation, all hell broke loose and eventually the Financial Regulator took over the entire bank for approximately two weeks. One of the figures involved at the London end of the consultancy firm told him that shortly after the Financial Regulator’s staff arrived at the bank, the link between the consultancy and the Dublin bank was disconnected on the Dublin side and all communications between the bank and external consultants ceased. This suggests panic on the part of the Financial Regulator and the bank. This was not entirely surprising given that the Financial Regulator was already under negative pressure from its German regulatory counterpart, BaFin, because of the near collapse of Sachsen Landers Bank triggered by irregularities in its Dublin subsidiary.

6 o’clock
It is astonishing that my informant, who was the initial whistleblower, was not on any occasion interviewed by the Financial Regulator nor was any attempt whatever made to contact him despite the fact that he was still technically an employee of the bank. Nevertheless, it is a legal requirement that all documentation of this kind must be kept and available for review at the bank. On top of this, records in the possession of the Financial Regulator should also document the bank’s failure to satisfy the liquidity regulations. One would not have to be Albert Einstein to detect, by comparing the balance sheet figures reported to the Financial Regulator by the bank with the liquidity ratios that were also reported, that an entire section of the bank’s balance sheet was not accounted for in the liquidity calculations. This may well have something to do with the lamentable situation encountered in other major Irish banks where dubious interbank loans are covertly arranged — something known as repo and reverse transactions. It seems obvious that there is a prima facie case that the bank behaved grossly irresponsibly and in breach of the law and that the Financial Regulator completely failed to engage in prudential supervision and exercise control of the bank’s activities as required in the State. I have presented a cast-iron case to the Minister to investigate this serious matter further.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Áine Brady): I thank the Senator for raising this matter on the Adjournment, to which I am pleased to respond on behalf the Minister for Finance.

Liquidity management is an essential requirement to ensure the proper functioning of credit institutions in order that they can meet their various obligations in a timely fashion as they fall due, while continuing to fund their day-to-day operations. In this way, depositors and other creditors of individual institutions can be assured that a credit institution’s commitments to them can be met. Robust liquidity management within individual institutions is also essential in order to maintain stability in the financial system as a whole.

The supervision of liquidity requirements for credit institutions licensed and operating in Ireland is primarily a matter for the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator within the legislative and policy framework laid down by the Minister for Finance in the context of their overall responsibility, respectively, for financial stability and the prudential supervision of credit institutions. The Minister for Finance has no role in the oversight of the liquidity of individual credit institutions. If the Senator is in possession of any information to suggest a credit institution has breached its liquidity requirements, I invite him to bring the matter to the direct attention of the Financial Regulator, if he has not already done so.

The Financial Regulator imposes quantitative and qualitative standards for liquidity for all credit institutions that it supervises, be they credit institutions operating in the domestic market or those operating in international markets. These standards are outlined in the Financial Regulator’s document, Requirements for the Management of Liquidity Risk, and have been formally imposed as a condition on the licence of all credit institutions. The Financial Regulator also has a role in monitoring the functioning of liquidity within branches of credit institutions operating in Ireland where these are supervised by their home country regulator. The Financial Regulator maintains close communication with the regulators of other member states for this purpose.

Credit institutions are obliged to report weekly to the Financial Regulator on their liquidity requirements. All credit institutions are also obliged to be in compliance with the requirements on an ongoing basis. Breaches of liquidity requirements may be subject to proceedings under the Financial Regulator’s administrative sanctions procedure or to prosecution.

It is important to note that while the Financial Regulator monitors compliance with its liquidity requirements, each credit institution also has a direct obligation to put in place the necessary structures and controls to ensure the Financial Regulator’s requirements are met. In particular, the board of each credit institution is responsible for developing a strategy for the ongoing management of liquidity risk and for establishing a management structure to enable the institution to identify, measure, monitor, control and report on liquidity risk. Any breach of the quantitative liquidity requirements must be notified to the Financial Regulator immediately.

The importance of good liquidity management to the soundness of individual institutions and the financial system as a whole has been made abundantly clear from events throughout the recent financial crisis. The crisis clearly highlighted that, without good liquidity management principles and practices, financial institutions would quickly find themselves under stress and unable to meet their obligations. Internationally, the ample supply of liquidity in the years preceding the onset of the financial crisis in 2007 left many credit institutions unprepared for the shocks that occurred and many credit institutions struggled to maintain adequate liquidity throughout the financial crisis. For this reason, the European Central Bank and other central banks have been providing extraordinary liquidity support for financial institutions throughout the eurozone during the current financial crisis. These measures were introduced at the discretion of the ECB to deal with the liquidity crisis affecting the European-wide banking system. Irish credit institutions and many European credit institutions have obtained liquidity support provided by the bank. However, dependence on ECB lending has been significantly reduced, indicating that conditions in international financial markets have improved substantially and Irish credit institutions have benefited from improved funding conditions which has been reflected in reduced recourse by Irish banks to Eurosystem funding. The ECB has indicated publicly that it is engaging in the progressive, timely and gradual phasing out of the non-conventional measures which were introduced in response to the financial crisis but that, notwithstanding this, liquidity support will remain for months to come. As such, there are no negative implications in the medium term from the announced “phasing out” measures.

Arising from the lessons of the financial crisis, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision has recently issued proposals for international minimum quantitative liquidity requirements to enhance banks’ approach to the management of their liquidity requirements and build up their resilience to future shocks. These standards will in due course be implemented in Ireland through EU legislation. The proper management of liquidity, in line with the requirements of the Financial Regulator, is, in the first instance, the responsibility of credit institutions and their boards. Credit Institutions are expected to meet these requirements on an ongoing basis and any breach should be immediately brought to the attention of the Financial Regulator.

Senator David Norris: I accept the Minister of State is not qualified in this area but her reply is a most astonishing statement. Of course, there is ministerial responsibility in this matter. I would not have been permitted by the Cathaoirleach to raise it if there had been no ministerial responsibility. That comment should be struck from the Minister of State’s speech. I know this is not her area but I would like her to take the message back to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, that there is ministerial responsibility in this matter.

This is a grossly serious matter which has been reported to the Financial Regulator. A man has lost his job as a result. He honourably resigned. The degree of breach was 40 times the accepted margin. This is a disaster. If we are not prepared to face the issue and investigate it when it has been laid before the House, there is absolutely no hope for the financial system or its reputation worldwide.

I accept and understand it is not possible to anticipate what I will say in a debate; therefore, I will excuse the reply on that basis. However, I have made very clear requests that this matter should be examined. How can the Finance Regulator investigate himself? He was in breach of his responsibility. That is the first point. The second is that the bank must be pursued and that the honour of the man whose reputation has been traduced must be restored. It not too much to ask in this Parliament that this should happen. I want the process to start tonight. I gather from the Minister of State who is nodding that she will undertake to do so, for which I thank her

The George Mitchell Scholarship Fund (Amendment) Bill 2010 - Second Stage - 23 February 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:34:00 +0000

The George Mitchell Scholarship Fund (Amendment) Bill 2010 - Second Stage - 23 February 2010
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State for this positive debate. The absence of discord is noticeable. Every contributor has spoken in support of the Bill, which represents a most positive development. I salute a great friend of Ireland, Trina Vargo, who is known to many of us in this House. She has worked tirelessly and honestly for the cause of Ireland. I have always been struck by her ability to call it as she sees it. We have learned a great deal from her trenchant contributions and I greatly value what she has done for Irish life. She was the senior foreign policy adviser to the late Ted Kennedy. I have great reverence for Mr. Kennedy, as I do for US Senator George Mitchell, in whose name these scholarships were founded.

Today is an appropriate day for this debate because we are all shocked by the news that a tiny splinter group, which is unrepresentative of the Irish people in every way, arrogantly and impertinently chose to attack the population of Newry. I deplore that attack.

It is by educational means, such as this scholarship, that we will continue to secure significant friendships in the United States of America. This is especially important in light of the changing political demographics in that country as the great generation of senior Irish-American politicians moves to one side so that their position at the centre of American life can be taken over by people from a variety of backgrounds.

5 o’clock
This Bill amends the George Mitchell Scholarship Fund Act 1998, which was introduced after the formation of the US-Ireland Alliance by Trina Vargo. In introducing the Bill in December 1998, the then Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Martin, stated: “It is a great pleasure to introduce a Bill that marks an historic development in relations between the two traditions on this island and between Ireland and the United States.” He went on to speak about George Mitchell and drew the inevitable comparison with the Rhodes scholarship to Oxford University. It is significant that a number of bright individuals in the American academic system chose to apply for the Mitchell scholarship over the Rhodes scholarship. However, even at the end of the ten year period over which the Irish Government will contribute €20 million, Mitchell will remain the junior scholarship to Rhodes in financial, although not intellectual, terms because the latter is funded by an investment of $200 million. That gives an idea of the scale of the disparity in investment and the extraordinary value we get from the fund in this country.

It is appropriate that the scholarship is named after Senator Mitchell, not just for his work in the peace process but also because of his background. His mother was an immigrant from the Lebanon, while his father was an immigrant from Ireland. They were both almost unlettered people, certainly people of no social status, but it is thanks to their hard work and the opportunities that the United States afforded to such people that Senator Mitchell was able to proudly say he had made it to being majority leader in the United States Senate from that background. That is the America we all respect, admire and love. Some of us have had differences with American foreign policy, but that is the America that has given greatness to the world.

Currently, the tenth class of Mitchell scholars are studying in universities. They receive approximately $12,000 a year. Their tuition fees, flights and accommodation are supplied free of charge and the bursary covers living expenses. They do not have to be Irish-American. The selection committee is just looking for academic excellence. It is a mark of the esteem in which this scholarship is held by the Governments of this country and the United States that they co-operate on it and that one of the leading members of the committee is His Excellency, the United States ambassador to Ireland.

The scholarship has a very high reputation, not just in Ireland but also in the United States of America. The fund was initially granted seed money of €2.7 million in 1998 by the Government. That was met with gratitude by the US-Ireland Alliance. The money was invested professionally but then the fund was hit by the technology crash that affected all of the sophisticated industries in Silicon Valley. We were affected by it in this country also. I do not think there is a suggestion of maladministration or bad governance. It was simply a fact of life. Ms Vargo and her colleagues worked hard to restore the fund to its original level again because the Government prudently put a brake on the disbursement of funds until the initial capital was restored. Ms Vargo managed to do this just at the point when we were hit by the latest global financial difficulty. For that reason, I commend the Government on its vision in committing itself directly straightaway to the provision of €2 million and €20 million in the next ten years. It is vital for this country that we have friends well placed in a powerful country such as the United States, especially those who are not part of our own tribal group but people of intelligence and perception who will understand the situation we are facing and assist us in dealing with it.

When the Bill was being discussed in the other House, I noted the concern expressed in the contributions of some Labour Party Members. They were worried that certain geographical sections of the country appeared to be excluded such as the north east because of the way in which the receiving universities had been scheduled. I ask the Minister of State to indicate whether these concerns were addressed. I hope Waterford Institute of Technology, for example, and other such institutions will also be included.

I am struck by the fact that among the very generous benefactors is Bernard McNamara, a building developer who has come in for a lot of stick. I thought he made an extraordinarily dignified presentation with courage and integrity when he spoke on radio. It is a mark of the man that he should have contributed generously to the scheme.

I very much welcome the Bill and pay tribute to the work of the Government. I had discussions with the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe, and we exchanged some views. I am pleased to say that, with other colleagues, we managed to advance its cause. It is something that is very positive in the annals of the relationship between the United States of Ireland — I beg the Leas-Chathaoirleach’s pardon — the United States of America and Ireland. We have a little longer to wait before this will be the United States of Ireland, something I am sure my good colleague, Senator Quinn, would also welcome.

Order of Business - 23rd February 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:41:00 +0000

Order of Business - 23rd February 2010
Senator David Norris: I join in the welcome to Senator Dearey. I also express my sorrow at what I understand is the imminent resignation of Deputy Trevor Sargent as Minister of State. I have known him for many years. I know him to be an honourable, decent, hard-working man. I am not sure of the circumstances but I expect there is some element of mistake as well as perhaps some error of judgment. I do not know, but I regret his leaving Government, which will be weakened.

I join the calls for a debate on the economy and banking. I do not agree with my friend, Senator O’Toole, that the issue of shares by Bank of Ireland rather than paying the debt is no big deal. It is certainly a big deal for the shareholders whose holdings will be further diluted. I agree with Senator Quinn who seemed to indicate that it would be a disastrous mistake to allow a Government to direct the exchange of credit to specific companies. There is no surer guarantee of corruption and the accusation of corruption. We should include in this debate a general debate on the economy.

Over a number of years I have raised the dangerous business of allowing upward-only rent reviews. We had it in Grafton Street and we have just had an astonishing case in Cork where a successful business, The Carphone Warehouse, was subjected to an increase from €39,000 to €205,000. Talk about garrotting the goose that lays the golden egg. That is absolute insanity in the middle of a financial difficulty. We need to expose this kind of idiotic attempt at profiteering by certain institutions in the State.

Order of Business - 18th February 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:29:00 +0000

Order of Business - 18th February 2010
Senator David Norris: The apparent behaviour of the Minister for Defence does raise certain ethical issues, although it is not the most important matter confronting the country. I would welcome a clean-up of electioneering practice. I hope it will not shock Members too much to learn that, even in the sacred groves of academia, things can get mucky at election time, believe me.

Senator Rónán Mullen: That is because there is so little at stake.

Senator David Norris: I wish to raise a matter which I have raised previously on the Order of Business, on the Adjournment and at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs committee, that is, the existence of camps for Roma families at Cesmin Lug and Osterode in Kosovo. There are 600 people living there in the most heavily lead-contaminated dump in Europe. I also raised this issue with the United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, when he was in this country and the human rights commissioner, but nothing is being done. Children are dying at the behest of a United Nations organisation and people are being forcibly repatriated to these camps from a number of European countries. A statement was issued this week by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr. Thomas Hammarberg, who visited the camps last week. He said:

The fact the camps have been inhabited for a full decade is no less than a scandal. The international community has a large part of the responsibility for this situation ... I call on European states to stop the forced returns until Kosovo can provide adequate living conditions...

It is extraordinary that in the 21st century countries which are members of the Council of Europe and the European Union can forcibly return people to a situation where their health is seriously threatened. Will the Leader, as a matter of urgency, bring the report of Mr. Hammarberg to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and ask him to see if it is possible to end this practice and rehouse the 600 people concerned? The highest levels of lead concentration have been recorded in the livers and other organs of small children in these camps. It is a moral reproach to Europe.

Motion on the Power Sharing Agreement in Northern Ireland - 17th February 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:23:00 +0000

Motion on the Power Sharing Agreement in Northern Ireland Agreement - 17th February 2010
Senator David Norris: I thank my colleague, Senator Ann Ormonde, for a remarkable display of cross-bench co-operation. This is one of the spirits we need in the North of Ireland: the spirit of genuine co-operation, and I am unsure whether it is always there. I share the admiration expressed by Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú for the remarkable performance of Senator Cassidy, particularly in displaying his reading skills. That said, I suggest that the next time a little additional punctuation might be added by whoever prepares the script because it is a little disconcerting when one stops on a preposition or a conjunction. Still, some admirable sentiments were involved, especially the emphasis on culture.

We must be realistic as well as co-operative. Ulster-Scots is not a language under any circumstances. I know a certain amount about languages and I know how one defines them. It is a dialect. It is quite an interesting dialect, but merely a dialect. Such is the massaging that takes place. Since the Shinners and the Irish speakers get €3 million, the other side must be balanced up. I realise these things must be done but let us be honest about it and let us not pretend it is anything more than this.

I was greatly struck by Senator Keaveney’s remarks about the road. She referred to “our road”. If we can make it so and make such events a celebration and not a triumphalism, then all these parades should be possible. There should be no problem with them. Historically, there has been and this has been partly due to demographic change. Now parades are going through areas that are strongly Nationalist and Catholic, but in the past such areas were not so. These demographic shifts must be accommodated within the tribal certainties, a very difficult thing to achieve.

The Administration in Northern Ireland is a very extraordinary, unusual and unnatural flower. There is no opposition and although I welcome it, it is a massaged situation. It is remarkable to see people who previously called each other bigots and murderers sitting down in Cabinet together to discuss matters to the benefit of the country and both their communities. At the same time, this should be only a transitional period because democracy will not really flourish in the North until there is proper oppositional politics.

I refer to the matter of roads. Some years ago, I was up on the Ormeau Road as an independent observer and I heard the drums. However, there are drums on both sides. I was horrified by the intimidation in the North. I did not know what the immediate beating meant but it is a tribal, savage, ritualistic thing. However, I heard the drums down here during the H-block hunger strikes. They were peas in a pod, exactly the same thing. They must be disinfected from the tribalism and become a cultural matter.

I very much welcome the fact that Senator Pearse Doherty is present representing Sinn Féin. It is an excellent thing. For many years I campaigned against section 31 of the Broadcasting Act. I believed it was a mistake and, unlike Senator O’Toole, I find I have quite a lot in common with that party because its members are the remains of what I would term the hard left and there is a place in Irish politics for them. They really take issue on such matters as trade unionism in terms of international politics.

Today, I met the new Colombian Ambassador appointed to London as, I am sure, did the Minister. I raised the question of trade unions and the extraordinary murder of trade unionists. Some 60% of murders of trade unionists throughout the planet happen in Colombia and there was a 25% increase in 2008. The ambassador was very skilful and charming at massaging those figures too. On the website of the President and the foreign ministry there is a notice suggesting the Minister for Foreign Affairs wrote to the Colombian President and indicated there was no need to bother with the trade union affairs and that although they were lobbying like hell, actually he was supportive of the free trade agreement.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Who said that?

Senator David Norris: It is on the websites of the Colombian President and foreign ministry, and it simply shows what can happen with massaging. Perhaps the Minister will be able to correct it.

Deputy Micheál Martin: The Senator knows full well what we are doing on that and we will communicate with him, as we have communicated with Senators up to now.

Senator David Norris: This is why I say it.

Deputy Micheál Martin: The Senator should be careful about articulating what may be misinformation.

Senator David Norris: Exactly.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I do not believe the Senator should give it the status he is giving it now.

Senator David Norris: No, but I wish to give the Minister the opportunity to contradict it and I am very glad he has done so. I hope he will return to the matter in his speech because this is an important aside and it deals with the whole area of political massaging. In the same vein, the German Foreign Minister stated there would be a European army. The Minister and I know there will be over our dead bodies.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator should conclude.

Senator David Norris: It is very good we have this situation at the moment and of course there should be strong co-operation. I am astonished by the people who want a 32-county republic but who object to people buying their goods in Newry. Their argument is that it is part of a different economic regime.

7 o’clock
I am all in favour of revisionism. We need a little more of it. People who were regarded as revisionist historians in the State were attacked as if revisionism were some kind of intellectual weakness. It is not; it is an intellectual strength. If new facts are presented, any intelligent person must accommodate them. I hope the kind of revisionism that has taken place in the South will start to take place in the North. It seems it is beginning because I have heard Unionists in the broadcast media saying they now understand there is an inevitability about a united Ireland. I never believed I would hear Unionists say that, nor did I believe I would feel my own heart chime in agreement, but there is a lot more massaging to be done before we get to that time.

We will support everything done in the interest of people not losing their lives and not being mutilated or blown up. We will continue in a united way to condemn the activities of the various ridiculous and disgraceful splinter organisations which, as Senator O’Toole said, continue to murder fellow Irish people in the name of republicanism, a brand that they blemish with their activities.

Statements on Cancer Awareness - 17th February 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:19:00 +0000

Statements on Cancer Awareness - 17th February 2010
Senator David Norris: I join in that welcome. Ms O’Meara is a distinguished former colleague and has represented the Irish Cancer Society. I express my admiration for the work done by this organisation. I also welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Áine Brady, and I seek the permission of the House to share time with Senator Rónán Mullen.

This is a serious situation and the facts are stark. This year, some 30,000 people will be diagnosed with cancer. This may be partly due to better diagnostic techniques but by 2020, it is estimated some 43,000 will be diagnosed, a very large number of people. We are all aware of this because we all know friends and close acquaintances who have been affected. In political life we have been shocked and saddened by the onset of cancer in Deputy Brian Lenihan and we all wish him well and a complete recovery from this very difficult form of cancer. It is something that affects everyone in society and it is very widespread.

Previously in the House, we have dealt with the tobacco industry, its dishonesty and the way it lobbied over smuggling, whereas we know perfectly well and, I am glad to say, we have put on the record of the House that the major tobacco companies have all been implicated and convicted of smuggling in the United States.

I will concentrate on lung cancer and sunbeds. More people die from lung cancer in Ireland than breast, prostate and colon cancer combined, a very shocking statistic. There is also a cultural shift. Men used to be more significantly affected but now women are catching up and the gap in closing. We must treat this as a human problem generally speaking. I am not terribly in favour of dividing and prioritising on the basis of gender, particularly with regard to screening. I welcome the roll-out of the breast screening programme. I am also glad that men’s cancer, especially prostate cancer, is now being taken seriously, along with colorectal cancer which affects both men and women.

One difficulty is that we have a very bad record in terms of the treatment of cancer in this country. We are one of the worst in Europe in terms of lung cancer. Perhaps this is because it is not caught in time. Given this worrying figure, we must re-prioritise things so that the Government assists in rapid access to diagnostic sources, clinics and treatment, especially for lung cancer.

I refer to the Quitline, a matter that has been mentioned by other Members. There is a very clear payback for investing in Quitline. Our neighbouring country, the United Kingdom, almost doubled its spending on quit line services and there was a very significant drop, from 27% to 24% in the rate of smoking. It may only be a change of 3% but it represents a very significant effect in terms of the numbers. At the same time, our investment dropped and our rate of smoking went up from 27% to 29%, which indicates we must invest heavily in this area. In 2004, the quit lines received almost 20,000 calls. In 2009, this had dropped to 5,750 calls, a massive drop resulting from a lack of investment. We know the quit line works and we should continue the service.

On this lovely sunny day on which we may be seeing the beginning of spring at last, I wish to be positive. There were three lovely, wonderful and beautiful young women on television one day recently, all of whom had cancer and one of whom had cancer three times. They were happy, positive, able to recover and living, which is marvellous. We should destroy the terror, mystique and horror of cancer and we can do so in positive ways. The Irish Cancer Society has done so and has shown the economic impact of giving up smoking which, in these difficult economic times, is a significant indicator.

I used to be put off somewhat by the view that if one stopped smoking it would be ten years before one’s lungs recovered, if ever. In fact, after 20 minutes one’s blood pressure and pulse return to normal, which is instant; after 24 hours the risk of heart attack begins to fall; after 48 hours the sense of taste and smell greatly improve; after 72 hours breathing becomes easier and energy levels increase; and after one year the risk of heart disease and lung cancer begin to fall significantly.

However, we must do more. We deal with legislation in these Houses and we passed the Public Health (Tobacco) (Amendment) Act in 2009, which introduced the enabling legislation for pictorial warnings. We know these measures work. I remember a not so gory advertisement that asked if one would like to kiss an ashtray. While I would not, I probably have done so in my time. Pictorial warnings register with one in that they are unpleasant and communicate in an anti-social way. However, we do not have a timeline for the implementation of the enabling legislation. Will the Minister of State indicate whether the Government is serious about having a guideline on this?

Sunbeds are not just used by women. I do not believe women are any more vain than men. I used to be in a gym for many years and there was no control over the sunbeds. There was no malicious intent on the part of the staff but they did not really know what they were offering, which is worrying. Some of these machines emit levels of ultraviolet radiation and other forms of radiation that are otherwise only deemed acceptable in medical treatment. The people who offer sunbed services are not qualified and have no idea about the levels of radiation being emitted. This is partly, but not entirely, responsible for the significant rise in malignant melanoma, skin cancer. There were 660 new cases of malignant melanoma in 2007 and this number will increase. There was a 75% increase in the risk of cutaneous melanoma when people began tanning regularly in sunbeds before the age of 30 years.

I ask that this matter be prioritised. I have asked about the pictorial advertisements and investment in the health side. My third question also relates to prioritisation. Are we to prioritise the legislation? Although the Bill is being drafted, a process which is taking a hell of a long time, it is disappointing that we are told it will not be ready before mid 2011. This is not good enough because we know the position. The information to which I refer is generally known throughout the Houses and must be known in the Department of Health and Children. While I recognise there is pressure on all Departments, I ask for specific information on the three aforementioned areas. It is a matter of prioritisation and we know taking action will do good.

The image of the Quitline service came into mind particularly because I was listening to the very good broadcast in the lead-up to Daffodil Day. I remember taking part in several events that were great fun. There were photographs of beautiful young women and beautiful young me in the middle sporting daffodils. The point being made is that there is not enough advertising. People will use the Quitline service but it needs to be advertised. People do not know the number, which is 1850 201 203. We need to invest in this service.

Order of Business - 17th February 2010.

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:15:00 +0000

Order of Business - 17th February 2010
Senator David Norris: Like colleagues and victims, some of whom are priests, I am saddened and dismayed by the charade in Rome. Pope Benedict has a problem because he needs to explain the involvement of his office in the case of a Mexican priest who faces charges regarding the abuse of priests in seminaries. I understand his name is Marcial Maciel Degollado and he founded the Legionaries of Christ. The Pope has refused to answer questions on the matter from American television crews. It is all of a piece with the question of the papal nuncio, who has refused an invitation from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which I have been a member since it was established. It is unusual to have such a refusal. Other ambassadors have appeared before the joint committee. As ambassador part of his function is to explain the position of the Vatican to the Irish people and its representatives, something which, on at least two or three significant occasions, he has failed to do. This raises the question of his position as doyen of diplomatic community in Ireland. It seems to illustrate the fact that one cannot serve God and mammon. In this instance Rome represents Christ and Caesar.

Parallel to this is the curious intervention of the Iona Institute recently in the matter of the proposed referendum to protect the rights of children. It is very much a case of déjà vu. It reminds me of the mother and child controversy because the position of the Iona Institute, as enunciated today on radio, seemed to be that it was concerned that any protection of children as individuals, as proposed in the referendum, would perhaps impinge on the power and authority of the Church. In Ireland we now have a situation whereby the protection of children is paramount and is certainly of more significance than the power and authority of the Church.

I raised in this House the question of a young man who was recently forced to take down a poster against homophobic bullying in a Christian Brothers school. I learned this week that the young man to whom I referred has been forced to withdraw from the school concerned because of continued bullying which has not been regulated. This is a situation we are continuing to face in this country.

Statements on the Proposed Emergency Funding to Greece - 16th February 2010.

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:13:00 +0000

Statements on the Proposed Emergency Funding to Greece - 16th February 2010
Senator David Norris: I thank my colleague, Deputy Quinn, for sharing time. It is not very edifying for us in Ireland to be included in the acronym PIIGS, but that seems to be what has happened and I am not sure it is entirely our own fault. If one looks at the situation, tax evasion is endemic throughout the Hellenic world. I have a house in Cyprus where the same situation obtains as in Greece. It is a national pastime to evade taxes. The entire establishment collaborates, in particular, in land conveyancing, etc. There is a systematic, deliberate and knowing fraud on the government. People do not want to pay tax. We know that. That is the first part of it.

The initial figures given by the Greeks when they entered the eurozone are now quite suspect. However, to my mind the most significant aspect — Senator MacSharry is quite right, I did raise this on the Order of Business — was the quite deliberate and malignant intervention of Goldman Sachs. It astonishes me that the big people get away with it. Implicit in all of this is a lack of morality. I have constantly railed against Standard & Poors, and Fitch, which were also involved in these toxic bundles and derivatives, but it should be placed on the record of this House to the dishonour of Goldman Sachs that it specifically perfected instruments calculated to deceive and to assist the Greek Government in postponing the evil day, in pushing forward all its debt and also to deliberately deceive their colleagues in Europe. That is a disgrace. It may not be illegal, but it is certainly wrong and it should be made illegal. Next we will have these hedge-fund managers and financial gurus also betting against the Greek economy and perhaps trying to bring down the euro. That certainly worries me.

The Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, stated in his speech that the eurogroup expressed confidence in the plans of the Greek authorities. Almost simultaneously, however, they were stating it is not enough and they need more. The measures adopted by Greece so far are twice as severe within a shorter timescale than what we have adopted here, and we are expecting them to be added to.

It is worrying to hear Senator Quinn state there are moves through different European parliaments to embargo a loan on Greece because the knock-on effect should Greece collapse completely — bankruptcy has been mentioned — would be serious.

In all the documentation issued there is a bureaucratic soft-tone diplomatic language. However, when one comes to the account of EUROSTAT, and its view of the Greek statistics, it speaks of significant uncertainties over the figures. EUROSTAT states that there is a recent report on exceptional and unprecedented failures in the reporting of budgetary data by Greece, severe irregularities and political interference with statistics and forecasts.

If Greece has lied, if Greece has landed in this, how many other countries have done the same? We were not prepared for this. Are any methods of investigation of certification being now considered that will prevent this happening in future?

I ask the Minister of State when he will be in a position to respond to what I said about Goldman Sachs. I will not be present when he replies but I will read the Official Report with great interest. Something needs to be done to address these people and their malign influence on the economy.

Order of Business - 16th February 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:11:00 +0000

Order of Business - 16th February 2010
Senator David Norris: Mr. Michael O’Leary is a very flamboyant, brilliant businessman. If he can create jobs in Ireland, everybody will welcome them. However, it seems more likely that he wants to play with Aer Lingus’s toys and apparently he is in a temper because he cannot do so. The hangar he wants, hangar No. 6, has been specially designed to take wide-bodied, transatlantic aircraft which Mr. O’Leary does not possess. It makes me wonder, if he is so anxious to create jobs here, why he did not submit a tender when this first emerged. Thank God for independent radio, both RTE and Newstalk, on which there was commentary. If we had only seen what was carried in the newspapers and listened to politicians’ reactions, we would have thought Mr. O’Leary was 100% right, but he obviously is not.

I ask the Leader for a debate on morality in public life.

Senator Eoghan Harris: Is that right?

Senator David Norris: Yes, I believe it is necessary. I was thinking, my dear Senator friend and colleague, of Albert Reynolds’s little line that it was the little things that tripped one up. One could invert this and consider the whole question of proportionality and size, for example, the banks which are too big to fail and the little people who pay tax.

With regard to Greece, Goldman Sachs, an enormous company, is involved in servicing and offering the fraudulent loans that allowed the Greeks to knowingly mess around with the figures and so on.

Senator Terry Leyden: The Senator has taken more time than I did.

Senator David Norris: Do shut up, for goodness sake.

Senator Terry Leyden: That is most unparliamentary.
Senator David Norris: I could be a lot more unparliamentary.

An Cathaoirleach: I will ask Senator Leyden to leave the Chamber. It is not his business to interfere with other speakers.

Senator David Norris: On a final point — one must be delicate about these matters — the Irish bishops are in Rome to be reprimanded about the way in which sexual abuse was covered up and so on. The issue goes entirely to the top. How can they take any other lead?

An Cathaoirleach: Time, Senator.

Senator David Norris: For example, the Pope ought to answer questions about Maciel Degollado and the Legionaries of Christ——

An Cathaoirleach: Senator——

Senator David Norris: ——the man who escaped from Mexico, was pursued by the police and given sanctuary in the Vatican. These are very serious issues.

An Cathaoirleach: I call Senator Ó Murchú.

Senator David Norris: I, therefore, ask for a debate on public morality.

Order of Business - 11th February 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:07:00 +0000

Order of Business - 11th February 2010
Senator David Norris: I call for an urgent debate on homelessness in Dublin. I raised this issue previously in the context of what I felt was a rather bureaucratic approach by the Homeless Agency on the collection, harvesting and retention of data on the homeless. It was rather insensitive. Now, the situation has become much worse because the Salvation Army in conjunction with Dublin City Council has announced the closure of the Cedar House emergency centre for the homeless on Marlborough Street. Eight of the people in contact with that agency died on the streets of Dublin over Christmas. This situation will get much worse. The response of the city authorities seems to be to clear these untidy elements off the streets. There is no doubt that they are awkward people. These are the most vulnerable and chaotic people. The excuse being used is that the hostel is not up to standard and that the most amenable people will be put into bed and breakfast accommodation, which is often filthy and poorly run. However, the chaotic people — drug addicts, alcoholics and people with mental problems — will be left out altogether.

Cedar House provides 50 rough sleepers with a bed. Those working there hand out bedding and provide 1,000 items of clothing per week. They feed people day and night and have an outreach service. What will happen to these people? Incidentally, 40 jobs are unceremoniously gone without discussion with the employees. The Salvation Army is seen as a Protestant charity, although I do not think it is. On the other side of the city, at Charlemont, Crosscare, the Catholic agency which does such excellent work, is also being closed at the behest of the city council. I warned that this type of thing might happen when I saw the Government dismantling the Combat Poverty Agency and the Equality Authority. The vulnerable have been left voiceless. It is for the Seanad to take up this cause and colleagues on all sides of the House have called for a debate on homelessness. I call for it urgently and would like it next week. These people are vulnerable and will die. If we do not give a voice to them, we can only hang our heads in shame.

Statements on Youth Unemployment - 10th February 2010.

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:48:00 +0000

Statements on Youth Unemployment - 10th February 2010
Senator David Norris: I thank Senator Ross for kindly sharing time. I do not need to welcome the Minister of State as the Senator already did so.

The Labour Party should have been allowed to call a division on the motion as it would have won it. That no Government Senator was present when the motion was moved created a rather awkward situation in such a serious debate. I remember winning a vote against the Government in similar circumstances many years ago on the basis that the Government benches were empty. It was argued that the Minister of State should be allowed to speak. Why? If the motion is proposed, seconded and unopposed, it should go to a vote. That option is no longer available.

I do not see a reason the Government side should not agree with a motion which states: “That Seanad Éireann notes with concern the rise in joblessness ... in particular the rise in youth unemployment”. Is the Government not concerned? Of course it is, as are all decent Senators on the Government side. The motion also calls on the Government “to implement a Jobs Strategy, including retraining and back to education support, to tackle this crisis”. Given that Senators on all sides have made that point, why are we going through this ritual farce of engaging in Ding Dong Denny O’Reilly, tit-for-tat rubbish every Wednesday night? Can we not grow up, put ideas together and get the country going again?

Ireland is in a serious position. According to the latest figures, unemployment increased in January by 3.1% to 436,936 compared with 423,595 in December 2009. The unadjusted live register increased by 110,664 or 33.9% over the past year. Dublin was hardest hit by the increase, with the number of people on the live register in the capital increasing by 38.1% in the past year. On a county basis, Kerry had the highest percentage increase of 6.2%, while Leitrim experienced the smallest increase of only 1%. There are not many people in County Leitrim and presumably most of them are employed. Men and women have been badly affected by the increase in unemployment. Figures show that 291,648 men and 145,288 women are on the live register.
I uncovered a very interesting statistic which shows that the number of workers from outside Ireland who are signing on increased by 5% or 3,876 in January. The number of Irish nationals on the register increased by 9,465 in the same month. A sizeable proportion of those signing on are from abroad, although many workers from outside the country have returned home. Underlying the figures is the serious problem that not only are we confronted with immediate unemployment but a large number of unskilled workers, the most vulnerable group, will be permanently on the dole. Even when the economy recovers to positive growth, it is likely that the jobless rate will never return to a level of 4% unless serious action is taken. The general estimate is that we will be left with a permanent unemployment rate of between 7% and 8%, most of whom will be unskilled workers.

The House earlier debated education, an area which is being squeezed by reduced funding, caps on staffing and cuts in courses. The issue is not being addressed by the Government. In addition, emigration to Australia and Canada has increased significantly with the result that more people are leaving Ireland than are arriving. We have, therefore, the beginning of a haemorrhage.

Recently, the Governor of the Central Bank, Professor Patrick Honohan, addressed the launch of the Trinity alumni career network, a group which is trying to secure jobs for Trinity College Dublin graduates. The Governor spoke about the ways in which we could boost the economy, including recapitalising the banks and so forth. However, even Professor Honohan had to note that employment levels among young Irish people have deteriorated much more rapidly than in other countries. He provided facts and figures on youth unemployment which I do not propose to repeat.

6 o’clock
The type of black hole economics which counts profits from multinationals generated abroad does not reflect the true economic position. I was interested to read what Dr. Craig Barrett, the former chairman of Intel, had to say about the Irish economy. Addressing the emergence of China, India, Asia and so forth, he stated that the idea of bringing in large multinational corporations was now unimaginative and Ireland had to rely on entrepreneurs, start-ups and new ideas to drive economic growth, especially in areas such as nanotechnology, micro-electronics, photonics, biotechnology and alternative energy. This is precisely the argument made by many Senators in this afternoon’s debate.

Why are we having this divisive debate when we should have allowed the Labour Party to win a division on the motion before having a free and wide-ranging discussion? Everyone in the House agrees with the sentiments in the Labour Party motion.

Statements on CAO Applications and College Places - 10th February 2010.

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:44:00 +0000

Statements on CAO Applications and College Places - 10th February 2010
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State with responsibility for lifelong education. Many mature people are going back to college. I would like to raise two specific cases, the first of which relates to a woman who was born and educated in Ireland and lived here for some years. She has recently returned to Ireland after spending four years abroad working with a voluntary organisation. When she applied for a place in one of our universities, she was told she was being assessed as a non-EU student because she had spent four years doing good work outside this country. That seems to me to be thoroughly insane. This is the kind of person who should be encouraged. I suggest she has been deemed to be a non-EU student so that the fees being extracted from her could be tripled. I ask the Minister of State to investigate this anomaly.

The second case I would like to raise relates to a woman who has been offered a place in my university, Trinity College. The difficulty is that she does not receive financial assistance of any kind to return to university to get another degree, as we are urging people to do. As a result of paying to do her first degree on her own initiative, she cannot get the back to education grant and does not qualify for what are known as free fees. She is working part-time to make money to return to college and, as a result, does not even receive social welfare assistance. While I welcome whatever the Government can do to support third level education, anomalies raised by public representatives, whether they are in the Central Applications Office, grants system or social welfare system, must be examined and ironed out.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Hear, hear.

Senator David Norris: It is important we get this right and encourage people because the economy is in difficulty and skills deficits have arisen in certain economic sectors. For example, the medical technology, chemicals and pharmaceutical industries have increased their share of Irish exports from 32% in 2000 to 51% in 2008. As a result, the number of applications for science degrees has surged, which I welcome. This surge has been met by an inevitable decline in the number of people applying for apprenticeships and so forth, especially in the building and allied trades.

I raise again the extraordinary proposal from the Higher Education Authority to phase out plastering courses in the Dublin Institute of Technology and to transfer them to Athlone Institute of Technology which has only provided such courses for the past four years in response to the building boom. The Dublin Institute of Technology, on the other hand, has won gold medals in this area and its wonderful lecturers include a person who is doing a PhD in Trinity College Dublin and a member of staff seconded from the Office of Public Works which did the wonderful ceiling restoration in this Chamber.

In response to the economic situation, the number of applications to the Central Applications Office increased from 66,500 last year to 72,500 this year. The Minister of State listed the numbers of applications and indicated there was pressure on the system but did not indicate how the system would respond to this pressure. The nub of the problem is that core funding to the universities was cut by 5% in 2009, a significant amount. As a result of the moratorium on the recruitment of staff, the number of staff will decline by 6% this year. While the number of CAO applications has increased substantially, the system which is supposed to absorb this increase cannot function efficiently without proper assistance. During the great days of the Celtic tiger we constantly heard that one of the reasons for the phenomenon of the Celtic tiger was the wonderful education provided in Ireland. We will support the Minister in making whatever provision is necessary to ensure we continue to have a good input in this area.

I thank God I am not involved in education any longer, either as a student or teacher. While students face a number of problems, I am pleased to note that the university authorities have some sympathy. For example, Trinity College Dublin, my own place, gives good advice to students to select two subjects in their TR001 option to ensure they have a fallback position if places are oversubscribed or there is competition for places. UCD had a similar idea and is introducing a new subject preference grid this year. The problem, however, is that the record number of applications will leave many students out on a limb. The Government must take a new initiative to respond to the surge in applications. I hope this debate will help spark such an initiative.

I note the chief executive of the Higher Education Authority, Mr. Tom Boland, has hinted that a new cap on the number of students could be necessary as underfunded universities struggle to cope with rising numbers. I wonder if this is the correct approach. On the one hand, we encourage people to study——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator is almost halfway through the time available to him.

Senator David Norris: I have made most of the points I intended to make. I am sure Senator Quinn concurs with my final point given that he pioneered the advocacy of electronic communications in the House. It seems daft that we still send out 80,000 CAO application forms and handbooks to students when almost everybody applies on-line. Why are we wasting so much paper? The handbook is sent out in hard copy which means it is out of date almost immediately because new courses are constantly being added. I suggest the Minister save paper. He would do a good job if he succeeded in looking after the students who manage to get through the system despite the enormous increase in applications. If he does so, the House will support him.

Statements on CAO Applications and College Places - 10th February 2010.

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:42:00 +0000

Statements on CAO Applications and College Places - 10th February 2010.
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State with responsibility for lifelong education. Many mature people are going back to college. I would like to raise two specific cases, the first of which relates to a woman who was born and educated in Ireland and lived here for some years. She has recently returned to Ireland after spending four years abroad working with a voluntary organisation. When she applied for a place in one of our universities, she was told she was being assessed as a non-EU student because she had spent four years doing good work outside this country. That seems to me to be thoroughly insane. This is the kind of person who should be encouraged. I suggest she has been deemed to be a non-EU student so that the fees being extracted from her could be tripled. I ask the Minister of State to investigate this anomaly.

The second case I would like to raise relates to a woman who has been offered a place in my university, Trinity College. The difficulty is that she does not receive financial assistance of any kind to return to university to get another degree, as we are urging people to do. As a result of paying to do her first degree on her own initiative, she cannot get the back to education grant and does not qualify for what are known as free fees. She is working part-time to make money to return to college and, as a result, does not even receive social welfare assistance. While I welcome whatever the Government can do to support third level education, anomalies raised by public representatives, whether they are in the Central Applications Office, grants system or social welfare system, must be examined and ironed out.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Hear, hear.

Senator David Norris: It is important we get this right and encourage people because the economy is in difficulty and skills deficits have arisen in certain economic sectors. For example, the medical technology, chemicals and pharmaceutical industries have increased their share of Irish exports from 32% in 2000 to 51% in 2008. As a result, the number of applications for science degrees has surged, which I welcome. This surge has been met by an inevitable decline in the number of people applying for apprenticeships and so forth, especially in the building and allied trades.

I raise again the extraordinary proposal from the Higher Education Authority to phase out plastering courses in the Dublin Institute of Technology and to transfer them to Athlone Institute of Technology which has only provided such courses for the past four years in response to the building boom. The Dublin Institute of Technology, on the other hand, has won gold medals in this area and its wonderful lecturers include a person who is doing a PhD in Trinity College Dublin and a member of staff seconded from the Office of Public Works which did the wonderful ceiling restoration in this Chamber.

In response to the economic situation, the number of applications to the Central Applications Office increased from 66,500 last year to 72,500 this year. The Minister of State listed the numbers of applications and indicated there was pressure on the system but did not indicate how the system would respond to this pressure. The nub of the problem is that core funding to the universities was cut by 5% in 2009, a significant amount. As a result of the moratorium on the recruitment of staff, the number of staff will decline by 6% this year. While the number of CAO applications has increased substantially, the system which is supposed to absorb this increase cannot function efficiently without proper assistance. During the great days of the Celtic tiger we constantly heard that one of the reasons for the phenomenon of the Celtic tiger was the wonderful education provided in Ireland. We will support the Minister in making whatever provision is necessary to ensure we continue to have a good input in this area.

I thank God I am not involved in education any longer, either as a student or teacher. While students face a number of problems, I am pleased to note that the university authorities have some sympathy. For example, Trinity College Dublin, my own place, gives good advice to students to select two subjects in their TR001 option to ensure they have a fallback position if places are oversubscribed or there is competition for places. UCD had a similar idea and is introducing a new subject preference grid this year. The problem, however, is that the record number of applications will leave many students out on a limb. The Government must take a new initiative to respond to the surge in applications. I hope this debate will help spark such an initiative.

I note the chief executive of the Higher Education Authority, Mr. Tom Boland, has hinted that a new cap on the number of students could be necessary as underfunded universities struggle to cope with rising numbers. I wonder if this is the correct approach. On the one hand, we encourage people to study——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator is almost halfway through the time available to him.

Senator David Norris: I have made most of the points I intended to make. I am sure Senator Quinn concurs with my final point given that he pioneered the advocacy of electronic communications in the House. It seems daft that we still send out 80,000 CAO application forms and handbooks to students when almost everybody applies on-line. Why are we wasting so much paper? The handbook is sent out in hard copy which means it is out of date almost immediately because new courses are constantly being added. I suggest the Minister save paper. He would do a good job if he succeeded in looking after the students who manage to get through the system despite the enormous increase in applications. If he does so, the House will support him.

Dog Breeding Establishment Bill 2009 - Committee Stage - 10th February 2010.

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:39:00 +0000

Dog Breeding Establishment Bill 2009 - Committee Stage - 10th February 2010
Senator David Norris: This is a glorious opportunity to sow political dissension and my colleagues on this side of the House have exploited it very cleverly. I am sure they are also motivated by principle and while it would be a very pleasant sight for some on this side to see a degree of disagreement between the Green Party — in particular, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley — and Fianna Fáil, that is not what the issue should be about.

With regard to the pet shop issue raised by Senator McFadden, I am delighted to hear there is a pet shop in Athlone and that the animals are well looked after. However, I would translate it into an invitation to the Minister to regulate pet shops also, not in this legislation but it should be——

Senator Nicky McFadden: We do not have dogs in our pet shop.

Senator David Norris: I thought the Senator said the dogs there were as well looked after——

Senator Nicky McFadden: No, I said the hunting fraternity——

Senator Camillus Glynn: It is a pet shop without dogs.

Senator Nicky McFadden: I am familiar with the hunting fraternity.

Senator David Norris: What did the pet shop have to do with anything?

Senator Nicky McFadden: We own it.

Senator David Norris: I see. I am sure animals are well looked after in the shop. Some pet shops do keep dogs. The question of exotic pets and their uncontrolled importation should also be examined.

Senator Nicky McFadden: Hear, hear.
Senator David Norris: I have a position on hunting, as I am against blood sports in general. I was interested to hear my colleague, Senator Mullen, drag in the issue of abortion, which seemed a little extraneous.

Senator Rónán Mullen: A passing reference.

Senator David Norris: It would be like me asking about the welfare of homosexual dogs in these various places. I share elements of his position. I certainly believe there is a hierarchy and that it is appropriate that as a species we look after ourselves. However, we should recognise our close genetic kinship with animals and our responsibilities for them. There is no contradiction whatsoever in my position which is completely consistent of accepting the idea of choice in respect of abortion, another matter for debate.

Senator Rónán Mullen: We can deal with the Senator’s failure of logic another time.

Senator David Norris: I am sure the Senator will attempt to address what he sees as my failure of logic but this is the Upper House of the Oireachtas, not the debating chamber in which, I read in The Irish Times, he did extraordinarily well as an undergraduate.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I thank the Senator.

1 o’clock
Senator David Norris: There is an argument that hunting is as humane as and as much in concert with the realities of life in the wild for it to occur as a culling mechanism. If it is a choice between the hunt, with its long traditions in the country and so long as it is at least humanely controlled, and the process of gassing, shooting or trapping foxes in a cull when they become regarded as vermin, it is better to go the natural way. My uncle was very keen on hunting. He was an Irishman who lived in England for quite a while. He lived in Rutland, the location of all the great hunts, namely, the Quorn, the Pytchley, the Belvoir and the Cottesmore. A friend of his, a very wealthy man, was master of the Cottesmore hunt. Many poor people on the streets of our cities would be delighted to be treated in the luxurious style in which those hounds were treated. They will look after their animals very well but why would they not? It is perfectly natural. However, it seems to be an argument against themselves. If they are so wonderful, they should be quite happy to submit to this test.

The DSPCA produced an extremely fine set of regulations which I hope will be administered under this legislation. It has requirements on hygiene, spatial requirements per dog and deals with the construction of kennels. However sophisticated and well heeled members of the hunt are, they are not beyond learning something from other aspects of animal welfare. Perhaps a little humility would do them no harm.

I am aware the Minister provided certain assurances in writing. I learned today that the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe, did the same a few weeks ago. It is perfectly legitimate for a Minister or a Member to change his or her mind on the basis of the weight of evidence. It would be useful in terms of advancing the debate if the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government explained his reasons for reviewing the situation and deciding against honouring his commitment.

With regard to fox hunters being upset by the pamphlets to which Senator Cummins referred, this has been a tradition in Irish life for many years. Seán Ó Faoláin wrote a wonderful story about a group of right-wing, reactionary moralists who objected to a performance in Cork of the Russian ballet. They formed themselves into the sodality of St. Mark and carried placards proclaiming: “Men of St. Mark, we have you marked.” All the local dignitaries were terrified to attend the ballet as a result.

Senator Rónán Mullen: An early version of “Down with that kind of thing”.

Senator David Norris: I imagine those involved in fox hunting are made of sterner stuff. All of us have received obnoxious material through the post. My distinguished colleague, Senator Cummins, read out a very unpleasant message and I certainly do not approve of such behaviour. The Animal Liberation Front is basically an English movement which has carried out some horrible and inexcusable terrorist escapades which do no good to the cause of animal rights.

Senator Rónán Mullen: Hear, hear.

Senator David Norris: However, it is a marginal element in Irish society and I am not aware that it has done much, other than picketing Barnardo Furriers at the bottom of Grafton Street. I imagine the sort of pamphlet described by Senator Cummins would cause more concern among shop assistants than among the hardy members of the hunt fraternity, many of whom are well known to me. I assure Senators they would give not only a verbal but probably also a physical response. I would consider such pamphlets as a prima facie case for a criminal prosecution for threatening behaviour. The police could therefore become involved. However, I do not think it appropriate to legislate on the basis of the activities of an isolated, tiny and unrepresentative group which is already subject to other areas of the law. I will be supporting the Government on this amendment because the provision as it stands is appropriate.

There is a certain snobbery in saying everybody else should be regulated but we should not because we are independently regulating ourselves. I follow the principle that independent regulation should always apply. I have argued for independent regulation in regard to newspapers, the medical and legal professions and every other area potentially subject to supervisory authority. I accept that most kennels attached to hunts are well maintained, accord a high priority to animal welfare and even come to love their animals but that is not a reason for exempting them.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Chur tú suas do paw, Senator Mullens.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I find myself in almost complete agreement with Senator Norris, who would be advised to examine his conscience.

Senator David Norris: I think so.

Senator David Norris: I find it increasingly worrying that I concur with Senator Mullen.

Senator Rónán Mullen: He can move back here if he wishes.

Senator David Norris: If it arises that somebody feels threatened, it would be useful to know what recourse or protection is open to him or her. Perhaps in unusual circumstances, names could be withheld from the public. However, in terms of dog breeding establishments, I have no difficulty with making full information available because the public should know how many dogs are being kept. Professional dog thieves would in any event be aware of the value of the dogs being bred in an establishment because the breeder would have to advertise them in order to continue in business. They would be able to calculate, after casing the joint, how many dogs are being bred. The purchaser is entitled to similar information.

In case anybody thinks I am red in tooth and claw in terms of hunting, I leave a question mark over fox hunting but disdain most other forms. I consider hare coursing to be a particularly damnable and degrading pursuit and I condemn it outright.

Senator David Norris: I would like to clarify that when I spoke about a minority, I was referring to the Animal Liberation Front and not any group lobbying——

Senator Paudie Coffey: It is influencing legislation.

Senator David Norris: I am not sure whether minorities or majorities were lobbying. I was lobbied by both sides. To a certain extent, I am supporting the Government against my own interest because I have been heavily briefed by opponents of the legislation, including in a rather interesting and intelligent letter from a constituent of mine, a Trinity graduate, who says he is very concerned about the impact that the Green Party is having on Government policy. It is perfectly legitimate for its members to have such an impact as there would not be much point in them being in Government if they did not. It is a measure of a civilised coalition when the parties listen to each other. That does not bother me but my constituent raised some interesting points. He states: “This piece of legislation is attempting to categorise hunt kennels under the same legislation as commercial breeding kennels.”——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We are on amendment No. 1.

Senator David Norris: I am well aware of that and this point is directly relevant. He continues:

Hunt kennels are very different, they are run on a not for profit basis, [I am sure the Chair can see now this is directly relevant] any hounds that are given to other clubs nationwide are gifted or drafted to other clubs and no money is exchanged. Similar legislation was put in place in various parts of the UK, including N Ireland, and all registered hunt clubs were exempt from this bill.

I was not aware of this previously and presumably there is a need for a wider explanation to be given in this area. My constituent has illustrated in the final line of this paragraph the reason for the shrill chorus of opposition because he is concerned that the Green Party is attempting to ban hunting through the back door. That is not what is happening, particularly in this Bill, but that is the fear. This fear, rather than any logical resistance to kennels being brought under the legislation, is what is at the back of this. There is an anxiety that this is the wedge in the door, which will lead to the banning of all forms of hunting. There are different views in the House on that but that is a matter for another day. I thought it would be honourable and appropriate to put this informed view by one of my constituents on the record, although that is another vote down the drain because I will vote with the Government.

Order of Business - 9th February 2010.

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:23:00 +0000

Order of Business - 9th February 2010.
Senator David Norris: Last week I mentioned that I was of the view that people in this country were beginning to rend and savage each other in a very unattractive way. In that context, I referred to the attention being given to the issue of travelling spouses. What I said was repeated on a radio programme and there was some support for my views. One of the correspondents asked how I knew what the public felt. I know because I have had nothing but congratulations from ordinary members of the public in Dublin and elsewhere in the country. I was down the country at the weekend. I received one telephone call from a very pleasant woman, a retired civil servant. She said she was feeling the pinch and that her medical card had been removed. She also said the only pleasure she had was in seeing others taken down a bit.

That leads to my second point. We need to have a balanced debate on the media. I refer to a very interesting article in The Irish Times on foot of another issue I raised — the treatment of the Lillis murder trial. It is stated in the article that the Constitution dictates that justice must be done in public, as is the case. It also states the unappealing aspect is that it facilitates the unappealing human instinct to wallow in the sins and misery of others. However, limits could be set because justice is administered in public in a courtroom, not on the street. I think people have a right to have their privacy protected. There is a very weak argument in favour of journalists being allowed to take photographs wherever they please of witnesses who are innocent people and not up on a charge; it states custom and practice dictate that photographs will be taken of most witnesses. The reference to custom and practice amounts to a very weak argument to be set against the constitutional rights of the citizen and respect for his or her good name and privacy. I suggest the privacy of innocent people and witnesses, in particular, should continue to be protected. I have no problem with the Garda giving mugshots of convicted criminals to the press — that is fine — but it is a very bad day when the press are attacking the Garda. I strongly support what the Garda did and will continue to support the force. I call on the people to stand up and stop this rending of each other and this disgraceful invasion of a person’s right to a private life.

Order of Business - 4th February 2010.

noreply@blogger.com (Senator David Norris) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:20:00 +0000

Order of Business - 4th February 2010.
Senator David Norris: I raise the treatment of issues such as the apparent fact that wives of certain Central Bank officials travelled with their husbands. I am bored to death by this unimaginative muckraking. It is about time a stop was put to it. I raised this issue over the years and was universally told that it was sour grapes on my part and that I was raising the matter because I did not have a wife and was never likely to have one. It was pointed out to me that this practice was part of the culture, that banks insisted on having a veto on a suitable or unsuitable wife, that its staff had to do this that and the other, and join golf clubs. It was all part of the PR or expense account and these people were ambassadors for Ireland. This was a universal view. Now, however, some people who put forward that view are, in a hypocritical, pious and po-faced manner, raining down criticism on those who were part of the culture to which I refer.

As already stated, I raised this matter in the past and received no support in respect of the arguments I put forward. In such circumstances, I decided to move on. The attacks currently taking place are ahistorical and hysterical in nature. Let us identify the problem, rectify it and then move on. I have deeply committed friends who live on the clippings of tin in order that they might work for the human rights of people across the globe. The universal comment they make when they return here is that they cannot believe the viciousness, small-mindedness, muck-raking, envy and begrudgery in which people in this country engage. I am not stating that everyone engages in this type of behaviour.

A new approach must be taken. We must rectify this problem and then move on and do something positive. We should not be attempting to demoralise everyone with stories of this nature which are only used to sell newspapers, make columnists popular etc. Let us stop boring the knickers off the public. We must get a move on, get ahead and find a new story. I do not want to hear any more stories regarding people’s wives accompanying them on trips. What we should do is rectify the situation.

Senators: Hear, hear.