Order of Business - 15th June 2006

Order of Business – 15th June 2006
Mr. Norris: I welcome the new agreement, although my feelings are slightly ambiguous. Due to my natural greed, which we all share, I am delighted at the prospect of a 10% pay increase but I am worried that we might price ourselves out of international markets. We must be careful to stay competitive.
Last night there was an interesting debate here on foreign policy issues and the use of Shannon Airport. Many of us will have heard a report from Washington this morning on “Morning Ireland” on the funeral of the 2,499th member of the US military to fall victim to the war in Iraq. He was a young, 25 year old man from Appleton, Minnesota, the heartland of America. As I am sure everyone would like to do, I express my sympathy to their families on the wasted lives of these unfortunate young people. Speaking on behalf of the people of Iraq, who suffer most, I cannot turn my eyes away from the suffering of others. It is said that war is a continuation of foreign policy by other means, and it is, but it is often practised by old men at the expense of the innocent lives and blood of the young.
Thank God for this wonderful weather. I hope it stays for Bloomsday. Young people of both sexes are looking absolutely beautiful in this weather, and it is a joy to be alive in Dublin. I rejoice with them.
Mr. U. Burke: The Senator was running away from such young people a few days ago.
Mr. Norris: There may be a sinister element accompanying this wonderful weather. We heard this morning of a plague of mosquitoes in Drogheda. It may sound amusing——
Ms O’Rourke: Not if one was bitten.
Mr. Dardis: There are gnats on North Great George’s Street.
Mr. Norris: ——but it indicates a substantial shift in the climate. For that reason I ask for a debate before the House goes into recess on the subject of climate change, global warming, the Kyoto Protocol and an underlying factor of the extraordinary expansion in population numbers. The leaving certificate examination is taking place at this time. Since I did my leaving certificate the population on the planet has doubled. The planet cannot sustain such exponential growth.

Private Members Motion - Use of Irish Airports - 14th June 2006

Private Members Motion – Use of Irish Airports – 14th June 2006
Mr. Norris: I move:
That Seanad Éireann, in light of:
- developments in Iraq;
- the recent publication of the Council of Europe Report on CIA Rendition Flights; and
- the confusion surrounding the legal status of any Garda attempt to investigate the nature of these flights,
hereby calls for the establishment of the select committee on the use of Irish airports to investigate the use of Shannon by American military authorities, especially the CIA, for which preliminary preparatory meetings have already been held.
This is an important motion. It is a subject I have pursued for a considerable time. I was probably the first person in either House to raise this issue. I have with me a selection of what I stated on the matter during the past few years. I am sorry to state they have been proved right. I am particularly pleased my colleague, Senator Henry, will second the motion because on a notable occasion she extracted from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform a clear statement about what the attitude of the Government is on any process akin to extraordinary rendition.
One of the horrifying things that has happened during the course of the Iraq war is the constant debasement of language, such as the phrase "extraordinary rendition", "shake and bake attacks" in which people are incinerated by illegal phosphorus bombing and suicides in Guantanamo Bay described as a "publicity stunt". This is unconscionable. Language has been devalued by the American Administration by removing from it all its moral content.
I put down this motion in light of the report by Senator Dick Marty, which made the subject topical. It has been rendered even more topical by the admission by the United States authorities that they transferred a chained and shackled prisoner through Shannon Airport in a civilian aircraft last Sunday without the required notification to the Irish authorities. This places a grave question mark over the assurances given to the Irish Government by the US authorities concerning their use of Shannon. These assurances were never legally binding anyway. It is a requirement of international law that they should be legally binding. They never have been and the Government knows this.
However, even if one accepted their assurances, one must look beneath these legally meaningless forms of words and understand this American Administration has departed drastically from the norms of international law. Torture has been redefined to the point where apparently the only proof a subject has been tortured is if it results in death or permanent injury. Practices such as waterboarding, in which the victim is half-drowned, revived under medical supervision and subsequently subjected to interrogation, a technique initiated by the Gestapo, is defined as not constituting torture.
No doubt, the piratical practice of kidnapping persons who may be either citizens of the US or third countries and transporting them to regimes which the Bush Administration publically holds in distaste so they may be tortured in the presence of CIA agents is regarded by the current incumbent at the White House and his associates as being perfectly legal.
Regrettably, spokespersons for the Government appear to have been infected by the linguistic practices of our American cousins. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, in a statement issued no later than yesterday, stated we will not facilitate and have not facilitated extraordinary renditions and that is and remains our policy. Perhaps it remains a publicly-stated policy but it is and will remain totally untrue. I call on the Minister to withdraw it.
It has been demonstrated beyond any possibility of doubt that by refuelling aircraft such as the notorious "Guantanamo express" we have incontrovertibly facilitated the noxious practice of extraordinary rendition. We in old Europe and many in the United States know this degradation of international standards of decency does not, and should not, be allowed represent the typical values of the democratic world.
Throughout this debate there has been constant obfuscation and indulgence in what the Taoiseach would no doubt describe as "waffle". Serious questions have been asked but never answered. The Minister for Foreign Affairs confines himself to answering questions which have not been asked but for which he believes he has a mollifying answer. He defends the Government against accusations which have never been made while never replying to those which have.
There has been a tendency in Government circles to dismiss the Marty report. The language, we are told, is emotional. I would not have respect for anyone who did not become emotional at the prospect of human beings, in some cases subsequently proved totally innocent, snatched off the streets or intercepted in airports, their clothes surgically shorn from their bodies, drug suppositories inserted in their anus, unceremoniously clothed in nappies, then shackled to the inside of a CIA plane disguised as a civilian aircraft and transported to destinations they know not where for the purposes of being tortured.
This is all done in the name of realpolitik to maintain American investment in Ireland. This is a short-sighted and mercenary view of morality and never served the Government well in the past. Senator Mansergh in this House last Thursday, if one unpicks the diplomatic language, was surprisingly frank on this issue, stating the conduct of foreign policy and our relations with other countries often involves striking difficult balances, taking into account both our values and interests.
Striking that balance wrongly can have serious long-term consequences. This is virtually what I was told by the Fianna Fáil benches when I was a lone voice opposing Irish beef deals with the Iraqi army. I well remember the phrase which emerged from the foreign affairs spokesperson on the other side, when I was told what I advocated might well be the moral position, but could Ireland afford it. We still have not resolved the question as to whether Ireland can afford to act morally in international relations.
I have some direct questions for the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and I would appreciate some direct answers. If, as the spokesperson suggested, there is nothing new in the Marty report, why has comment not been made on the clearly proven fact that Ireland has been involved in facilitating rendition? The Minister of State is shaking his head but it is perfectly clear. A man was snatched off the street, he was taken to Egypt, he was tortured and we refuelled that aeroplane on the way back. That facilitates rendition. At least, I know what the meaning of language is, does the Minister of State?
Does he accept that, as I stated, the flight in June 2003, almost exactly three years ago, in which Abu Omar was abducted in Milan, illegally flown to Egypt where he was tortured, was refuelled at Shannon Airport with the consent of the Irish Government on its return journey during the same flight schedule? Does he accept this is clear evidence, and would so be accepted by an international criminal court, of Ireland's collusion with the United States in the practice of extraordinary rendition?
Does he accept that only for the action of cleaning staff, who boarded the aircraft at Shannon last Sunday, a blind eye would have been turned to this incident also? Does he accept that had the aeroplane, which had just dumped Abu Omar in Egypt for the purposes of torture, been inspected in Shannon the modifications made to that plane for the purpose of transferring prisoners would have been noticed and reported?
I was one of three people who made a complaint to the Garda Commissioner concerning these flights. In response, he appointed two detective inspectors to interview me. I arranged to be accompanied at that interview by Deputy Michael D. Higgins. We checked our recollections of that meeting and we can both state independently that we were told on that occasion by these senior representatives of the Garda Síochána that because of the way in which international treaties were incorporated into Irish law, they lacked the power to make the type of investigations sought at that time.
This is in clear and direct contradiction of what both the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs told the Dáil and the public. In reply to a question by Deputy Sargent in the Dáil yesterday, the Taoiseach retorted that Deputy Sargent was not a garda. This is quite true but neither is the Taoiseach. I, at least, have the advantage of having spoken to the representatives of the Garda Commissioner. Will the Minister of State outline precisely the legal status concerning such investigations? This is exactly the kind of area that the abortive committee, whose terms of reference had already been agreed by an all-party committee of the Oireachtas, could have investigated had it not been squashed by a combination of interest groups operating in the undergrowth of Leinster House.
Arguments were made that Senators were lobbied by local councillors from the area around Shannon Airport. It is a sad day that Seanad Éireann should be ruled from Clare County Council. I would have thought councillors would have learned by now that it can be dangerous to mix money and morality. In any case, American business is peculiarly hard-headed. Despite all the obsequious lickspittling, it was announced a week ago in the newspapers that a large proportion of these commercial military flights is being transferred to other European destinations which are more convenient. Shannon Airport will and must survive but it should not and must not survive on blood money.
There have been attacks on the Marty report, on its use of language and its reference to a "spider's web". However, I have a map showing the flight paths and if it were shown to any child, he or she would describe it as a spider's web. Shannon Airport is right at the centre of this network of shame.

Mr. Dooley: It is not at the centre.

Mr. Norris: We have been named and shamed in the Marty report as being in "category A". We have been asked to do something about this by the human rights section of the United Nations, the Irish Human Rights Commission and Amnesty International - I could go on and on.
The practices to which I have referred are gross in the extreme and I would like to put them, as determined by the Marty report, on the record. Reference was made to the lack of evidence but there is plenty of clear, cogent, factual evidence, itemised point by point in the report. Detailed observations, flight patterns and climatic conditions are all included. The report makes an absolutely cast-iron case about rendition and it describes what is known as the "security check" as follows:
i. it generally takes place in a small room (a locker room, a police reception area) at the airport, or at a transit facility nearby.
ii. the man is sometimes already blindfolded when the operation begins, or will be blindfolded quickly and remain so throughout most of the operation.
iii. four to six CIA agents perform the operation in a highly-disciplined, consistent fashion– They are dressed in black (either civilian clothes or special 'uniforms'), wearing black gloves, with their full faces covered. Testimonies speak, variously, of "big people in black balaclavas", people "dressed in black like ninjas", or people wearing "ordinary clothes, but hooded".
iv. the CIA agents "don’t utter a word when they communicate with one another", using only hand signals ...
v. some men speak of being punched or shoved by the agents at the beginning of the operation in a rough or brutal fashion; others talked about being gripped firmly from several sides.
vi. the man's hands and feet are shackled.
vii. the man has all his clothes (including his underwear) cut from his body using knives or scissors in a careful, methodical fashion; an eye-witness described how "someone was taking these clothes and feeling every part, you know, as if there was something inside the clothes, and then putting them in a bag".
viii. the man is subjected to a full-body cavity search, which also entails a close examination of his hair, ears, mouth and lips.
ix. the man is photographed with a flash camera ...
x. some accounts speak of a foreign object being forcibly inserted into the man's anus; some accounts speak more specifically of a tranquiliser or suppository being administered per rectum - in each description this practice has been perceived as a grossly violating act that affronts the man's dignity.
I do not have time to read the full description into the record but I hope I have read enough to shame all of us in this House. Deputy Michael D. Higgins stated in the Dáil last night that these practices are "in breach of every single principle of international law, namely, the manner of apprehension, the manner of transporting, the issue of habeas corpus, the right to legal protection, delivering a person inhuman treatment and the delivery of a person through enforced disappearance into an ill-defined and indeterminate place of detention".
This is the mess we have gotten ourselves into. If only the Government had listened several years ago when I and my colleagues on this side of the House, and many decent Members of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, referred to these practices and tried to stop it from averting its eyes from the horror in which it was rapidly enmeshing itself and becoming complicit, we would not be in this mess tonight.

Mr. Norris: That is one of the most shabby and disgraceful performances I have ever witnessed a Minister of State come out with in this House. I am astonished it has come from this man. I did not think the Minister of State would sink so low. I wish to correct some of his comments.
How dare the Minister of State suggest that I deliberately highlighted and stated that category A was the most serious category. Show me the record where it states that.

Mr. Treacy: We should examine it.

Mr. Norris: If the Minister of State cannot read, it is his problem and it is certainly not mine.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator, without interruption.

Mr. Norris: If the Minister of State did not bother to listen it is also his problem.
The Minister of State also made a comment which is deliberately, clearly and demonstrably untrue. Just five minutes ago he stated there was no single case in the Marty report which had any connection with Ireland. That is absolute tripe.
I present the case of Abu Omar. Senator Marty's explanatory memorandum to the report states:
At midday on 17 June 2003, Hassam Osama Mustafa Nasr, known as Abu Omar, an Egyptian citizen, was abducted in the middle of Milan. Thanks to an outstanding and tenacious investigation by the Milan judiciary and the DIGOS police services, Abu Omar's is undoubtedly one of the best-known and best-documented cases of "extraordinary rendition". Via the military airbases at Aviano (Italy) and Ramstein (Germany), Abu Omar was flown to Egypt, where he was tortured before being released and re-arrested. To my knowledge, no proceedings were brought against Abu Omar in Egypt. The Italian judicial investigation established beyond all reasonable doubt that the operation was carried out by the CIA (which has not issued any denials). The Italian investigators likewise established that the presumed leader of the abduction operation - who had also worked as the American consul in Milan - was in Egypt for two weeks immediately after Abu Omar was handed over to the Egyptian authorities. It may safely be inferred that he contributed, in one way or another, to Abu Omar's interrogation. The proceedings instituted in Milan concern 25 American agents, against 22 of whom the Italian judicial authorities have issued arrest warrants. Abu Omar was a political refugee. Suspected of Islamic militancy, he had been under surveillance by the Milan police and judicial authorities. As a result of the surveillance operation, the Italian police were probably on the verge of uncovering an activist network operating in northern Italy. Abu Omar's abduction, as the Milan judicial authorities expressly point out, sabotaged the Italian surveillance operation and thereby dealt a blow to the fight against terrorism. Is it conceivable or possible that an operation of that kind, with deployment of resources on that scale in a friendly country that was an ally (being a member of the coalition in Iraq), was carried out without the national authorities - or at least Italian opposite numbers - being informed? ... There has recently been a significant new development in the investigation by the Milan prosecuting authorities, however: an agent belonging to an elite Carabinieri unit has admitted taking part in Abu Omar's abduction as part of an operation co-ordinated by the SISMI, the military intelligence services.
That flight was refuelled at Shannon. Will the Minister of State listen to what has been said, and will he for once honestly respond?

Mr. Treacy: Was he on board?

Mr. Norris: I never stated I had any evidence that prisoners were being brought through Shannon Airport. I made the point, which has been clearly proved time and again in a number of cases, that the aircraft were refuelled. That constitutes collusion.
With regard to what was said about assurances, they are not worth a damn. Both the Minister of State and I know that. The Minister of State knows the definition of torture given by Condoleezza Rice, even with regard to the case of Guantanamo, where there is a degree of visibility, was that hooding, white noise and sleep deprivation were used. The Minister of State should be ashamed to sit there as a member of Fianna Fáil and a Government which took the United Kingdom Government to the European Court of Human Rights on those three grounds exactly and tried to defend it.
It is a shame on this House. I am disgusted. There is a case for reform of the Seanad. The reform should involve removing these rotten constituencies whose candidates are elected by fewer than 1,000 county councillors. We should have some real democracy, as is evident with the university seats. We are elected by a real number of real voters without vested interests.

Mr. Treacy: If everybody voted there would be a change of personnel straight away.

Mr. Norris: I will give a further comment. The Minister of State quoted the business of assurances which were given. It has been made expressly clear by the Venice Commission that those assurances are not worth anything unless they are legally enforceable against the country giving the assurances. Paragraph 233 of the explanatory memorandum states:
The principle of trust has been invoked by other governments. This is the case with Ireland, for example: the government has stated there was no reason to investigate the presence of American aircraft, since the United States had given assurances.
The Government conveniently neglected to mention or give any reference to the attitude of the Venice Commission.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator has one minute.

Mr. Norris: The view of the European Union was that it was absolutely essential that there be legally enforceable guarantees.
It is not surprising, and we are not the only country involved, and certainly not the worst offender. I never stated that and I bitterly resent that such a lie was told in this House. I demand it to be withdrawn.

Mr. Treacy: I would never want to tell a lie about anybody. My interpretation was-----

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Minister of State cannot come in. Senator Norris should conclude.

Mr. Norris: I accept the Minister of State's withdrawal. Even the Swedes, neutral during the war and who did such wonderful work, collaborated in one of the worst examples of rendition.
There were many decent speeches on the Government side of the House. Even people whom I always thought were very much against what we say on this side of the House were reasonable to a certain point. Then there was a lack of logic. I was shocked and surprised by what Senator Minihan had to say. We are only allowed to take logic so far, and then it will be ignored. My old pal Senator Daly seemed to suggest that because there was an atrocity on 11 September 2001, the Americans could do what they liked as there was only a small number of people involved.

Mr. Daly: That is incorrect.

Mr. Norris: Perhaps we should look at the Official Report.

Mr. Treacy: The Senator is selective.

Order of Business - 14th June 2006

Order of Business – 14th June 2006
Mr. Norris: I support Senator Maurice Hayes because the marching season is often fraught with tension, particularly for the minority community in Northern Ireland, and it shows maturity that they are talking to each other and that these contentious marches are being agreed. That is the way the community should go. Would the Leader request information from the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources about a serious subject that was brought to my attention by listening to RTE Radio 1, when Mr. Derek Davis pointed out that we passed legislation in both Houses governing safety in sailing and motor boats and providing for further developments by ministerial regulation?
Although prepared, these regulations have not been signed. They would include a requirement to have at least a level 2 motor-boat certificate. One does not need a certificate of competence or a licence to drive a boat. Some of them are dangerous and can go at 240 km/h. We have had a series of tragedies over the last couple of years with people using jet-skis, which can be dangerous. There is no regulation and drivers do not even need insurance. If this House passes legislation and the Minister fails to sign regulations, putting citizens' lives in danger, we are entitled to an explanation.

International Criminal Court Bill 2003 - Second Stage Debate - 13th June 2006

International Criminal Court Bill 2003: Second Stage - 13th June 2006

Mr. Norris: I welcome this Bill and there seems to be a general welcome for it. We have been waiting for legislation of this kind since the Nuremburg trials of the 1940s to which no doubt many other speakers have referred. It is useful to remind ourselves of the expression of principle given when the Rome statute was adopted. It reads:
The States Parties to this Statute...
Affirming that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation,
Determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes,
Recalling that it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes, . . .
Hear, hear say I. This is an attempt to introduce ethics into the conduct of international relations, including the horrible practice of warfare which has caused so much destruction and loss of life on this small planet over the centuries. It is a move in the right direction that we are to get some kind of international authority and in a direction on which a distinguished former Member of this House, Mary Robinson, has spoken on many occasions when using the phrase "ethical globalisation". I would like to think that is what we are doing here.
I have some reservations about the Bill, some of which have been mentioned. Senator Cummins referred to Amnesty International's submission. I propose to outline some of its concerns.
This court was founded in July 1998 at a United Nations diplomatic conference and the treaty that emerged became known as the Rome statute. The United States, under then President Bill Clinton, signed this but after his election in 2001, George W. Bush nullified that signature. This was a very regrettable act, although understandable in pragmatic terms because it might expose some significant figures from the recent American past to scrutiny which they probably would not welcome. This exemption of itself and taking to itself of exceptional status by the United States, has been highlighted by distinguished commentators such as Paul W. Kahn who said:
The US claim for special status undermines the very idea of the rule of law as a single, principled normative order to which we are all bound. Even worse, it may undermine the great international effort of the last century to subject the use of force to the rule of law. For the United States to take this position is particularly embarrassing, since it, more than any other modern nation state, has held itself out as committed to and constituted by the rule of law.
It is regrettable that the American Government has taken the position of trying to water down or tear up the Geneva Conventions. It had a significant input into weakening even the Rome statute. I speak not as one who is anti-American but as one who is deeply committed to the essential principles of liberty and respect for the rule of law which until recently characterised the American political attitude.
It is a pity that the Government did not take on board the practice of some other countries to have full consultation with various representative groups, women's organisations, people who represent the victims of torture who have come to this country, lawyers' organisations, professional legal bodies, academics and groups such as Amnesty International.
That is why it is important to cite some of their reservations, the questions they raise and some of their requests that this legislation, which is good, be strengthened. For example, the Minister of State and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Michael McDowell, have spoken about complementarity and the definition of crimes to be covered by this Act. While one welcomes the criminalisation of crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and so on, some sections of the Rome statute are inconsistent with the stronger provisions we have already enacted in Irish law. This is untidy, creates unnecessary confusion and should be cleared up.
Some of the crimes under sanctions and the definitions of some listed under Article 8 are much weaker than the prohibitions in other international protocols and treaties which we have signed. By incorporating all crimes as defined in the Rome statute in a lump, we have perhaps weakened our situation in regard to other treaties we have ratified. Amnesty International refers in particular to:
. . . the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol l) and Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, (Protocol ll), as well as national laws implementing them including the Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act 1998.
In particular Article 57 (2) (a) (iii) of protocol l prohibits "an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage". The definition of this crime in Article 8 (2) (b) (iv) of the Rome Statute is much weaker and because at the urging of the United States of America (USA) it replaces the narrow term "concrete and direct military advantage" with the expansive term "concrete and direct overall military advantage.

Amnesty International suggests the incorporation of Article 8(2)(b)(xx) into national law. It states:
[This article] includes the war crime of employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict. Such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare must be the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and be included in an annex to the Rome Statute by an amendment to it. There are a number of such prohibited weapons ...
Section 6 of our Bill expressly excludes this. The Government's reason for this is that we must wait a period of seven years for the final ratification and definition. However, other countries, notably Brazil, have got round this in their draft legislation. Brazil provides that war crimes cover any weapons, projectiles, material and methods of warfare that are the subject of a prohibition in any treaty ratified by Brazil. We could have done that and it would have strengthened the Bill.
There are other aspects of war crimes less serious than genocide or the other crimes listed, for example, unjustified delays in repatriating or freeing prisoners of war or interned civilians once active hostilities have ceased. This has been described internationally as a grave breach, but we have not criminalised it. One suspects this may be on account of American pressure. We merely have to look at the situation in Guantanamo Bay to realise how sensitive an instrument this might be. Americans are still interested in this kind of legislation, even though they have opted out of it.
Senator Cummins raised the matter of the prohibiting of conscripting or enlisting underage children. Amnesty International states that Articles 8(b)(xxvi) and 8(e)(vii) provide:
It is a war crime to conscript or enlist children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or to use them to participate actively in hostilities ... The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict which Ireland ratified on 18 November 2002 establishes a higher standard of protection for children.
The protocol provides for the age of 18. We signed that agreement so why do we not have the imagination and wit with this Bill to go for what we have already agreed in other elements of the law? People under 18 need this kind of protection. Amnesty International clearly states that as a result of its research, it believes that voluntary or compulsory recruitment by governments or armed groups of people or children under the age of 18 can jeopardise the mental and physical integrity of these people.
There are other crimes not contained in the Rome statute, for example, torture, extrajudicial executions, etc. As my time is short I will just list some of the other areas of concern such as the question of jurisdiction over past crimes, the notion of a statute of limitations and the question of command and responsibility.
With regard to the notion that civilians have less to fear from this Bill, I would call that the "Rumsfeld exemption" because of people like him who sit at desks away from the armed conflict and protect themselves. I am happy to hand over to my colleague, Senator Henry.

Order of Business - 13th June 2006

Order of Business – 13th June 2006

Mr. Norris: I wish to refer to something I said about RTE last week. I stated, with the support of other Members, that it had not covered debates in this House. Since then, I have been informed that while it had done so, it had changed the broadcasting time, which did not appear in the newspapers. It is important to withdraw that criticism.
However, I wish to replace it with a different criticism, which concerns the new
programme scheduling. It proposes to remove programmes like John Kelly's
"Mystery Train", which is a distinguished and unique form of broadcasting and
which brought people's attention to groups such as the Buena Vista Social Club,
of which they would not otherwise have heard. I also refer to broadcasters such
as John Creedon, that inimitable voice, Val Joyce, as well as Myles Dungan's
arts programme. There is a legitimate interest in this regard, because RTE is a
national broadcaster. While I am happy to pay the licence fee, I do not see why I
should do so, simply to get another music and blather station.

Mr. Ryan: Hear, hear.

Mr. Norris: Members want a real national broadcaster and ought to support RTE in its provision of its traditional kind of distinguished coverage of the arts and other interests.

I also wish to raise the issue of Guantanamo Bay, especially in the light of the
suicides of three inmates. They were astonishingly described by an official –
whose own title, namely, the person with responsibility for political diplomacy,
poses some questions - as a public relations stunt. It was some stunt and I doubt
whether the official herself would be inclined to engage in such a stunt. It
showed astonishing disrespect to so describe it. Moreover, I was amazed at the
governor of the prison, who stated that it was an act of aggression against the
United States and that it constituted asymmetrical warfare. He was correct in
that the action could not have been more asymmetrical. It involved one
imprisoned, shackled and tightly controlled person in his pyjamas against a
nuclear power which has no scruples in respect of torture. That is certainly
asymmetrical. However, it begs a series of questions and I am glad that the
Government has at last woken up to what is happening at Shannon Airport. That
issue will probably be a matter for tomorrow night's Private Members' debate.
The Government has called in the American ambassador because a civilian aircraft with more than 100 military personnel and a prisoner in shackles has been discovered. I congratulate the whistleblower, the cleaning lady, who made the discovery. A cleaning lady, or even a garda disguised as a cleaning lady, who boarded some of the other aeroplanes might not have found someone in shackles, but would have found the shackles. I am glad the House will debate this issue tomorrow night.

In addition, the House should have a wider debate on the Middle East, in the
light of the bombing of a beach in Gaza, in which there were seven civilian
casualties, as well as the apparent descent of Palestine into civil war. It has
been stirred up and is the direct responsibility of all those countries, including
Ireland, which meanly held back money from the suffering people of Palestine,
although they did nothing whatever about the human rights violations or the
implementation of the human rights protocols attached to the external association
agreement between Israel and the European Union.

Joint Committee on Transport - Privatisation of Aer Lingus: Ministerial Presentation - 31st May 2006

Joint Committee on Transport:
Privatisation of Aer Lingus: Ministerial Presentation - 31st May 2006
Senator Norris: I apologise to the Minister and the committee for missing the early part of the meeting. I was with other members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs at a private meeting with the Iranian ambassador. The committee will be pleased to learn that from my part, the exchanges were as robust as they apparently were here this afternoon.
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to Aer Lingus, which he put on the record. We all feel that commitment and, by and large, feel well served by Aer Lingus as a national airline. The situation has become difficult. The Minister is correct that we have witnessed the collapse, for various reasons, of national airlines throughout the world. We want to avoid this by whatever means possible. The Minister said we will need €2 billion to invest in long-haul aircraft and I am sure that is reasonable. I also know one cannot expect the Minister to give an estimate of what he imagines he will get from the sale because that could be financially prejudicial. However, the newspapers have suggested it could be approximately €400 million, so it will certainly be very far short of the €2 billion needed. That raises the question of from where the money will come.
As an observer, I noticed it was authoritatively stated at one stage that the State could not invest in Aer Lingus but this turned out to be incorrect. Under European Union rules, one cannot invest in the airline if it is in a financially negative situation. However, the market would not do so either. The market would be much more ruthless. It might not be prevented by legal restrictions from investing in a disastrous situation but I cannot imagine anyone investing in something which would be a dead end. There is a certain level of contradiction there.
It is also worrying to those of us who are not experts on the stock market to read comments suggesting that as the year progresses, the situation appears to be getting less favourable. Like Deputy Connaughton, I would be concerned. He asked a very good question which was not answered to my satisfaction. He asked if it is possible, even at a late stage, to pull out even if Aer Lingus has been put on the market and the machinery has been set in train. Is there a point at which it becomes impossible to take Aer Lingus off the table, because the auctioneer’s hammer has come down, and even if it must be sold at a bad price?
I am not ideologically committed one way or the other. I am not a member of a political party nor will I ever become one.
Deputy Glennon: The Senator is welcome to join us.
Senator Norris: I thank the Deputy for the invitation which I will graciously decline.
Remarkable allegations were made in the Dáil suggesting that senior management had attempted to steal the assets of the airline. I know that was modified subsequently but it raises the question of parallel situations where utilities were privatised. We are right to have concerns about it given, for example, the Eircom situation. Were the same advisers, who were consulted on the Eircom sale, consulted? It turned out to be a bit of a stinker. The net result of that is that we have a thoroughly rotten public utility in terms of Eircom. It gives hopeless service to the public and it was clearly asset stripped in the interests of wealthy people. Ordinary punters like myself would be very concerned that something comparable should not be allowed to happen to Aer Lingus.
There is also the question of pensions. Again, the Minister went part of the way - I will not get involved in a badinage - but I still have a slight concern. The type of talk I heard today was about fulfilling the legal requirements. The legal requirements may be less than the moral ones. A week or so ago, two gentlemen of a certain age, who had retired from the successor to TEAM Aer Lingus, appeared before the committee. What they were looking for was not only the minimum required by law but what they felt was their moral entitlement which was parity with other Aer Lingus employees because they believed they were, in essence, although perhaps not in law, employees of Aer Lingus. What the Minister has said suggests they will be treated in accordance with the requirements of the law which might create a difference between them and other Aer Lingus employees.
As an observer on the sidelines, I am concerned. I like Aer Lingus and fly with it whenever I can by choice. It is important we have a national airline. I am concerned about the privatisation of utilities precisely because I believe the citizen has often been shown not to get as good and as appropriate a service. I would not like to think this would happen to our national airline. We should treat all former employees equitably.
Deputy Cullen: The Senator raises a number of issues, some of which we have covered. We have had a debate on the EU rules on State aid and whether the Government could invest in a company. The rules are complex and while State investment might be possible in principle, in practice this may not be the case. It is a complex legal area and the matter is not as straightforward as some of the advocates of State investment might suggest. While it is possible that State aid rules might facilitate Government investment in Aer Lingus on the basis of the market investor principle, the application of the principle is certainly not straightforward. Even without State notification of such investment, the European Commission might seek to challenge any such investment. If, in the prevailing circumstances at the airline, the State aid rules did not prove an impediment to investment, there is no certainty this would be always the case.
I would be on very solid grounds in saying that if the State were to invest, it would be challenged. I think it is clear who would challenge it and I never limited the raising of such a challenge to the Commission or the EU. The Government would end up in the courts for a number of years and by the time the process would be complete we would have crippled Aer Lingus. I have no doubt that, like us, the Belgians probably held exactly the same views about their national airline, but sadly Sabina no longer exists. To the best of my knowledge none of the other traditional State carriers remains in State hands. That tells us something. I am not in the business of tying the hands of Aer Lingus behind its back and then sending it out to compete in the marketplace. That would be disingenuous. I would be failing in my duty to the staff and, as Deputy Shortall stated, to the taxpayer. I am not prepared to allow that happen. I have no doubt the best way forward for all, the staff, the national airline and the economy, is to ensure Aer Lingus has the necessary resources to compete in future.
The figure of €2 billion has been mentioned. That investment can be funded in different ways. However, one needs strong investment in the company to fund part of it, the company can then borrow on the strength of what it is doing and there are various ways of funding the purchase of aeroplanes. We are not trying to raise €2 billion from the sale of the company, as that would be neither feasible nor realistic.
Pensions are an issue for the company. The staff is not in receipt of State pensions. That is not to say I am a passive observer of what is involved. Obviously, I want to ensure the pension fund is in a strong and robust state going forward, not alone to cater for those employed at present but to ensure existing pensioners are catered for. We will come to the final conclusion of how the figures break down. A number of issues fit into the parameters, only one of which has been mentioned in regard to the resolution of the pension fund. I do not want to speculate beyond that.
Senator Norris: I am not an expert in the law, but I know that in certain areas of law in Ireland, and I assume it may be applicable internationally, in regard to commercial competition - I presume the Minister was talking about other airlines seeking to damage Aer Lingus - that if such action was lost and-or held to be vexatious for the purpose of wasting the assets of the opponent, the person taking the initial action could be required to lodge in court sufficient funds to compensate the party for the injury suffered. I would have thought this might be a line the Government might take up. The Minister referred to tying its hands behind its back but it seems that unless it has been aggressive in pursuing the possibility, there may be an ideological reservation about that slightly pusillanimous position being taken up by the Government in regard to whether it can legitimately invest in Aer Lingus. I think it would be worth looking at that possibility in a vigorous light.

Joint Committee on Transport - Transport Users Survey 2006 - 17th May 2006

Joint Committee on Transport:
Transport Users Survey 2005: Presentation - 17th May 2006
Senator Norris: I welcome our visitors. I wish to follow up on my colleagues’ comments on the methodology of the sample because 75 appears to be a small number. If I recall correctly, I understood there had to be more than 1,000 to reach something called the chi factor, which meant one could extrapolate and make national assumptions. I assume that is possible with 75, although it is in some other way I have not understood. Could our visitors give us some information regarding the geographical spread and how these people were selected? Are they all business people or are they general consumers? There is a possibility that they might all be business people.
With regard to rail freight, it is a great pity that this aspect of Irish transport has been so neglected. I am sorry that there are no plans in the new Cork Port development for a railhead. This is something that should be seriously considered if we wish to move more goods off the roads, where they are not universally welcome. Mr. Murphy mentioned another port.
Mr. Murphy: Bremore in north County Dublin.
Senator Norris: I am surprised there was no mention of the metro in Dublin. I believe this is one of the principal ways of achieving a reduction in surface traffic, particularly private vehicles. Will Mr. Murphy confirm that the chambers, particularly the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, strongly support a metro? I am concerned that we are only getting bits and pieces. There has been an announcement of the underground link between Heuston Station and——
Deputy O. Mitchell: Interconnector.
Senator Norris: It has been described in the media as an underground link.
Deputy O. Mitchell: It is an underground link.
Senator Norris: Yes. I welcome it. May I continue?
Deputy O. Mitchell: I thought the Senator was looking for the word “interconnector”, but he was not stuck for words.
Senator Norris: Not at all.
Chairman: Deputy Olivia Mitchell should allow Senator Norris to proceed.
Senator Norris: I am glad of the protection. It is important that we examine the complete underground project, not in a piecemeal fashion but as something integrated. Personally, I favour a more developed underground project. There is also the issue of the visionary tunnel. I heard about this from professional groups that seem to think it is rapidly becoming technologically possible. I wonder about the choice between trying to develop a tunnel between this island and Britain, which seems quite adventurous, and developing one which would run directly to the Continent and which would be of enormous length. Whatever about the practicality of getting a connection to England, the one to the Continent appears to be quite fantastic. However, all types of fantastic things have happened. What is Chambers Ireland’s view on the balance of practicalities between a tunnel to England or a tunnel to the Continent?
This brings me to the question of size. Mr. Murphy referred to the advent of enormous ships. I expect that they will be built. However, what about the safety factor? If one of these large vessels was involved in an accident, issues surrounding oil spillages, contamination from the products on board, etc., would arise. These vessels become more dangerous in direct proportion to their size. In addition, if ships of this size are coming to the country, presumably there will be lorries of a comparable size distributing the goods. Does that not make it even more farcical that the Dublin city authorities so resolutely opposed a small enlargement of the tunnel to allow these larger lorries to use it? That seems daft. In future, such lorries might be even bigger. It is, therefore, bizarre to talk about diverting these vehicles - which should be removed from our streets - back into the streets of the inner city.
Mr. Murphy referred to privatisation of the bus system and so forth. There are various problems with that. The State bus company, for historical reasons, has adequate garage facilities. The private bus companies appear to have no such facilities and use the public highway to garage their buses. One can see this throughout the city but, more particularly, in the north inner city. The Dundalk buses, for example, provide a very good service but clog up parts of Parnell Street and Mountjoy Square. This is not a proper use of the city’s resources. It is not a sophisticated approach to transport that the only place one can pick up bus connections between the major cities and Dublin is on the public highway, where they create a nuisance, double park and dribble oil everywhere. Will Mr. Murphy comment on a method to provide some bus stations, even for private buses? If there is to be a major development of privatisation, it is not appropriate that this expansion should be on to the public streets. There must be some provision for garaging.
Mr. Murphy: I will try to address the Senator’s questions in the order they were asked. With regard to the methodology, pages 29 and 30 of the survey, which was distributed to the members, outlines the number of recipients and respondents and provides profiles in respect of them. A total of 600 businesses were profiled. The survey was undertaken with MORI MRC, a reputable survey company. That company is comfortable with it being a statistically valid sample size.
We spoke about the indicative number when we broke it down to the eight EU NUTS regions. There are NUTS regions for eight areas of the country and there are 75 respondents per region. That is where the data start becoming indicative in nature. This ties in with Deputy Olivia Mitchell’s query regarding the 75 and the indicative number in respect of Dublin. We were not biased towards Dublin even though perhaps one third of respondents were from there and it is the principal port for the country. Given the way in which much of our country is tilted infrastructure-wise, Dublin has a direct influence on many other parts of the country from an infrastructure and transport point of view. In many ways, the perceptions of that among the two thirds of the population living outside Dublin are equally valid and, therefore, we are reasonably comfortable with the breakdown for the NUTS regions. The other issue is we have to get a sample from across the country. Since we represent business communities throughout the country, we need data of interest to them also which is why we break it down in that way.
Chambers Ireland is supportive of the metro. Dublin Chamber of Commerce will appear before the committee tomorrow, so members can ask it in greater detail exactly what it thinks about the metro and how it should go. However, Chambers Ireland believes it is important and very much needed. Going via Dublin Airport to Swords is good.
I turn to the Dublin Port tunnel and the size of ships. Whether we like it or not, the size of ships is increasing. The 12 ships about which I spoke are 1,200 ft. long and 150 ft. wide. These enormous ships have been commissioned and the size of ships will only get larger. The word “fantastic” is a fair one to use but, in the long-term, many fantastic things have happened for good or ill and it is a question of being prepared to embrace those changes as they come, which is what we are discussing.
In many ways, the market will decide the size of trucks. I do not believe it is necessarily the case that a leviathan ship begets a leviathan truck. It is down to the cargo container size and how it is transported.
Senator Norris: There has been no sign of trucks getting smaller.
Mr. Murphy: That is true, but it is an issue for another day. Turning to garaging, I do not know whether private operators are parking in the Parnell Street area. That may well be the case but there are ways in which it can be dealt with.
Senator Norris: It is most definitely the case. I am not against these companies which give a very good service and which have very polite, courteous drivers and passengers. However, it is not appropriate to have a bus park created willy-nilly off the main street of a capital city.
Mr. Murphy: There are ways to deal with that in the context of incentivisation or otherwise. If parking facilities are in place, people will use them. It is an issue for the city authorities to determine how it can be done.
Senator Norris: Would it be possible to do a little more work on that and to produce a few recommendations along the incentivisation lines because without that, in my experience of this country, sweet damn all will happen?

Road Traffic Bill 2006 - Second Stage Debate - 8th June 2006

Road Traffic Bill 2006 - Order for Second Stage - 8th June 2006
welcome the Minister and this important piece of legislation. When I was young, owning a car was a luxury and there were not many around. Now we must face the problem caused by a great increase in road traffic, which is not exclusively an Irish problem. Neither are road fatalities just an Irish problem, as evidenced by a report published today highlighting the problem on an international scale. It refers to an epidemic, especially in developing countries, and to the very large number of children and young people who are slaughtered in road carnage. I welcome the fact that the Minister addresses that in the Bill with serious intent.
We are becoming inured to the problem, to the extent that we assume there will continue to be slaughter on our roads, particularly at weekends and bank holidays. I recently filled in for the presenter of a radio broadcast and reported that Gay Byrne had said it would be wonderful if, over the bank holiday weekend, Irish people had become so alert to the dangers that they avoided fatalities. It would be marvellous to be able to come on air and report that nobody had been killed over the weekend. I thought that was the case, because I could see nothing in the newspapers about it. However, I was apparently wrong because somebody phoned in and asked whether I listened to the news broadcasts on the radio station on which I presented, whereby I would have learned of seven deaths over the weekend. I consulted with the Minister’s adviser and was told it was true. However, because they happened in ones and twos nobody paid any attention. There has to be a pile-up with multiple fatalities before there is any real media coverage. That says something about the way our feelings have hardened, so that we accept as a matter of routine the fact that people will be killed. Each death, however, is a tragedy for the person concerned and for his or her family.
On the subject of broadcasting, I commend the Government on appointing a well-known broadcaster, who has great respect and commands a wide audience, to a position in this area. We must communicate at a popular level. I would like the popular, commercial radio stations, to which young people and teenagers - the audience most at risk - listen, to insert information on the subject on a regular basis.
The Minister talked about the implementation of a new system of speed limits. That is welcome but a more radical approach would be even more so. As the Minister knows, I harp on about this continually and eventually the penny will drop. To achieve greater standards of safety on the roads it is necessary to command the respect of the driving public. The present speed limits do not do that and cannot do so because they are totally incoherent and random. Last weekend I drove to Blessington for a 90th birthday party. When one reaches the well-known watering hole, the Old Shieling in Jobstown, one passes from a three-lane motorway on both sides, on which the speed limit is 60 km/h, or 35 mph, to a winding country road with a speed limit of 100 km/h. That is daft. Why would anybody respect that? I am always told such matters are in the control of the local authorities but it should be taken out of their control. There should be a national controlling body to oversee the relevant limits and make them consistent, coherent and worthy of people’s respect. Then they should be rigorously enforced. It is not fair to enforce absurd limits which contradict reason.
Why is there no consistency in road humps? I invite the Minister to travel along Londonbridge Road. I travelled along that road at ten or 12 mph the other day and I still nearly lost the back of my large old automobile. The humps are not rounded but akin to cliffs, from one side of which a driver tumbles vertically. That is also absurd and there should be some degree of standardisation, so that people will have respect for the authorities.
Tackling drunk driving, which is still, regrettably, endemic, is one of the main features of the Bill. We cannot address the subject purely from the perspective of road traffic. Visitors to this country constantly tell me that drinking, including drinking to excess, is part of our culture. We have licensed every newsagent in Dublin to sell hard liquor, beer and wine, and that is a problem. Why has the Government failed to act on the recommendations of a report it commissioned? I can supply the answer myself. It is because of the extraordinary strength of the vintners’ lobby. The Government should face up to that lobby in the way it courageously did on the question of smoking in public places. It has not shown equivalent concern about excessive drinking. Until we address it we will not solve the problem of drink driving.
Earlier today I was listening to RTE 1 and a light hearted show with a Polish theme. It was like an advertisement for vodka. The message sent by the show was that a person was neither fully alive nor capable of having a good time unless he or she was absolutely plastered. Why do we continue to do that, and to continue to permit such a high level of advertising? I ask that as a fallible human being who, at the moment, both smokes and drinks. To embed such an idea in our culture causes great problems.
The Minister is considering mandatory testing but seems to avoid the words “random testing”. Various constitutional issues have arisen on the subject, one of which seems to suggest that if gardaí singled out one person from a group for a breath test there might be a constitutional requirement to test every member of the group, which would be a waste of time. However, if there is a suspicion in the minds of gardaí that a person is drunk, they should have the power to test that person. I hope this legislation gives them the power to immediately stop a person for that purpose. I am not a sneak and informers are not popular, even when they clearly should inform like Deputy Ferris in the other House. However, I have, on occasion, telephoned from my car, on my hands-free set and having pulled in at the side of the road, to give a registration number and other details to gardaí of cars which were being driven dangerously. I remember one man on the Navan Road weaving right across the double white line in the centre of the road. He was obviously very drunk or very seriously ill and, I understand, was subsequently stopped.
I have a problem with fixed charges and disqualifications. If a person bites the bullet on foot of an accusation of drunk driving, he coughs up €600 and takes his medicine in the form of a six month disqualification. That is fine. If a person goes to court, however, he faces more severe penalties. I know what the Minister is trying to achieve but I have a problem with this in principle because access to the courts is a right as a citizen. It is not appropriate that citizens should be penalised for exercising their democratic right to contest a case in court. Neither is it fair; if people are equally guilty, they should get an equal penalty. This level of discrimination is wrong.
Hands-free mobile phone sets are for the time being exempt from this provision. I agree with Senator Dooley and others that the use of mobile phones is a curse, not just in this country. The worst example of this I have seen was in Cyprus, a lorry driver on the road from Limassol to Paphos who was steering with one elbow, his phone at his ear, while he extracted a hair from his nose with his other hand. It is a mercy he did not cross the reservation and plough into a line of traffic heading the other way.
I have not seen the same here but I have seen bus drivers using mobile phones while driving. I saw a woman the other day turning a corner with one hand while on her mobile phone. It is endemic and is not gender specific, it takes in all classes and categories of people, including the gardaí. On the radio programme I hosted yesterday, someone phoned in to say he was on the M50 and had seen a Garda car with the driver on a mobile phone while entering the roundabout. There is an exemption for people in the legislation, a legitimate defence being phoning an ambulance or the gardaí. The gardaí are probably more or less exempt but they should be careful and should be limited in the use they make of this. It sets a bad example if the gardaí are seen using their phones. People will think that if the gardaí can get away with it, so can they. It is a problem that comes back to the question of respect.
I want to introduce a subject that is not directly related to road safety but that has a bearing on respect in terms of road traffic: clampers. I notice that Galway has got rid of them. I initially welcomed them, and was pasted by my friends in North Great George’s Street for doing so, but I am less anxious to support clamping now. This is related to the privatisation principle included in this Bill.
On two occasions neighbours of mine, one of whom is a distinguished solicitor, found their cars clamped although they had a perfectly valid ticket visible through the windscreen and were within their time limit. Photographs were taken but on both occasions the clampers refused to present the photograph to the driver and insisted upon clamping the car, telling the owners that they had no right to see the photograph. The car owners pointed out that the ticket was in the car and within the time. The clampers replied that the ticket could have been bought any time but that is not the case because the ticket displays the time of purchase as well. On both occasions, however, the car owners gave in and paid. That is not fair. It is also wrong to have cars removed from highways and dumped in residential streets, as happens regularly in my area.
There is a suggestion in the legislation and the Minister’s speech that public vehicles are routinely tested. I do not believe that. If they are tested, it is done badly. My car was initially refused a certificate a couple of years ago because of the absence of a tiny rubber nipple in the boot. I constantly drive behind buses, particularly tour buses, that belch out black smoke. That does not suggest they are being looked after.
There is an accident waiting to happen in O’Connell Street. The taxi rank was successfully moved out and at least half of the drivers were happy with where they were relocated. A big bite was then taken out of the central reservation, the taxis were put back and a bus lane was added. Do people not remember the tragedy at the Clarence Hotel involving a bus? That will happen again in O’Connell Street.
Worse still, even though it is attractive, there is no visual distinction between the road way and the footpath in the plaza outside the GPO. That was done to create the impression of a square but it is very easy for foreigners, elderly people and daft old bats like me to wander out under a bus. The paved areas should be clearly marked. Local authorities have a terrible responsibility because several tragic accidents have occurred due to the application of inappropriate road surfacing material.
It is absurd, as people on all sides of the House have agreed, that driving instructors should take a day off to deal with the driving test backlog, thereby creating a worse backlog. It has implications for young drivers because those who have not passed their test are penalised by having to pay far higher insurance rates because they do not have a full licence. Why should young people be penalised in this manner? It costs them a great deal of extra money.
The way to get us to drive more safely is to give us all reason to respect the rules of the road. The notices at county boundaries which detail the number of fatalities on the county’s roads, and those that tell drivers belt up or pay up, are useful reminders. On occasion, I have noticed that I have forgotten to put on my seat belt and the sign has reminded me. Such stark notices with sensible messages are effective.

Order of Business - 8th June 2006

Order of Business - 8th June 2006
Mr. Norris: I welcome what the Leader said about the adjournment of the Dáil last Friday which rendered our debate on an important matter less significant than it would otherwise have been. I pointed out at the time that by allowing the Dáil to adjourn, the constitutional position of this House was fundamentally undercut and eroded because we were established principally as a revising Chamber to oversee Government legislation and table amendments to it. Having made that clear, I welcome what the Leader has said. I agree with the Leader that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has made himself available to the House. It is a pity, however, that when the legislation was debated here there was no broadcasting of “Oireachtas Report” on RTE.
Ms O’Rourke: There is none this week either.
Mr. Norris: It happened yesterday and today also. We are constantly being chided by the media for the fact that these benches are not always full, even though they know we are in our offices, yet where are they when we want them? This is a very important matter and it did not receive the wide public dissemination it should have.
I agree with Senator Brian Hayes about the Mater Hospital site for the new national children’s hospital. We should examine this matter, which I raised yesterday. Today there have been calls by the consultants involved in various hospitals for the establishment of an international peer review. Such a review would only take three to four weeks, so it would not hold up the process. It may well be that the Mater Hospital site will still be chosen. It is a very good hospital but while it is a fine site, it may not be capable of the kind of expansion necessary in future.
The need for a debate on rendition flights was ventilated yesterday.
Ms White: Hear, hear.
Mr. Norris: The news has been announced today of the death of al-Zarqawi in Iraq. Due to the fact that I criticise rendition flights, I am sometimes seen as being an enemy of the United States and of democracy but I do not gloat over the death of anyone. However, al-Zarqawi was a person who lived by the sword and now he has died by the sword. His intervention in Iraq was not welcomed by the Iraqi people and I cannot mourn for him but I do mourn for our values. I also mourn the fact that once again, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has been totally and deliberately disingenuous.
Mr. Daly: That is not right.
Mr. Norris: He does not accept what the report says. It says quite clearly that our involvement in the process of extraordinary rendition has been confirmed.
Mr. Daly: It does not.
Mr. Norris: Nobody says there is proof that people were taken through Shannon Airport on their way to torture.
Mr. Daly: They were not taken through Shannon Airport.
Mr. Norris: We know they were taken to torture.
Mr. Daly:
Not through Ireland.
Mr. Norris:
It is now absolutely confirmed that those planes were refuelled at Shannon Airport.
Senator Marty also stated that the attitudes and behaviour of the United States in seeking to redefine torture is utterly alien to the European tradition and sensibility, and clearly contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He stated that 14 states, including Ireland, have been colluding either intentionally or negligently by turning a blind eye to what was going on.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
Is the Senator seeking a debate?
Mr. Norris:
Yes, I am, because a group in this House yesterday tried to dismiss the report and discredit Mr. Marty.
Mr. Glynn:
They were right.
Mr. Norris:
The editorial in The Irish Times states it “is a valuable addition to our knowledge of this whole affair and his advice on future policy is sound”. That has been echoed by the Human Rights Commission.
Mr. Daly:
It does not involve Ireland.

Mr. Norris: When will we wake up and realise a fundamental breach of human rights is taking place? I ask the Leader to secure copies of the Marty report, make them available to all Members of the House and have a full debate on the matter.
Mr. Daly: That would be welcome. It would show Ireland is not involved.
Mr. McDowell: I endorse what others have said with regard to yesterday’s proceedings reflecting on last week’s proceedings. The defence the Leader made of the Minister was well made and justified. The fault lies with the Whips in the other House. This is not the first time they have behaved in the fashion they did last Friday and it will not be the last.
It is worth making the point that we had a good debate when the Minister came to the House and spoke without interruption last Wednesday.
Ms O’Rourke: That was the earlier debate.

Private Members Motion - Housing Policy - 7th June 2006

Private Members Motion on Housing Policy - 7th June 2006
I, and probably all Members of the House, share the Labour Party’s concerns about the enormous increase in house prices. The house my father bought in Ballsbridge in 1946 and where I was reared was recently on the market. It was withdrawn at €3.5 million and the sale was negotiated for a substantially higher figure. It probably was sold for more than €4 million.
Senator Ross is correct about young people spending disproportionate amounts on mortgages. Approximately 33% or one third of their income goes on repaying mortgages. A rise in interest rates is expected on Thursday from the European Central Bank. That is likely to be not 0.25% as originally expected but 0.5%. It will add several hundred euro to the mortgage repayments of the average family. We might eventually reach the point indicated by Senator Ross, where banks will start to repossess properties. That will lead to the problem that arose in the British market some years ago, negative equity.
However, that might not reduce the price of houses in Dublin. According to the construction industry there is still a substantial under-supply of houses in the Dublin area. The market, therefore, will squeeze the price further up. There is also the problem of gazumping, where people make an offer for a house which appears to be accepted but, within a matter of days, the price increases in a fashion that is difficult to justify morally, whatever the legal constraints might be. An interesting case of gazumping was aired recently on Joe Duffy’s “Liveline”. The person involved was absolutely adamant and eventually secured the apartment at the original stated price.
There is enormous pressure on young people who cannot afford to acquire a house. Communities are being destroyed because young people cannot afford to buy houses in the areas in which they were reared, where the prices have been forced up not just by market forces but also by people coming into the area and investing in the housing market for profit. One good feature of the market is the exemption from certain types of duties for first-time buyers. That is a good idea. Affordable housing is also a means whereby young people might be able to get on the property ladder. However, even then it is difficult because they must get sufficient money together for a deposit.
It is worrying that so many builders have managed to get around their obligations by making payments. The Government should insist on the correct proportion of affordable housing. The greed of the construction industry has been clearly signalled by the fact that among the people with enormous incomes who have been under investigation recently by the Revenue Commissioners for non-payment of tax, a significant proportion of them generated these enormous sums from the housing market. However, that was not enough for them. They also sought to fiddle the banks.
While Senator Ross took on the banks, in which I am usually happy to join him, on this occasion I concentrate my fire on the construction industry. There are practices in the industry which must be examined. The price of housing in this country is absurd and will only lead to misery for young people.

Health (Repayment Scheme) Bill 2006 - Second Stage - 7th June 2006

Health (Repayment Scheme) Bill 2006 - Second Stage - 7th June 2006
Mr. Norris: I thank Senator Quinn for allowing me to share time with him. I welcome the Minister of State to the House and welcome this legislation. I was surprised that the Minister of State’s speech contained no expression of regret because, as Senator Quinn noted, this was an illegal action on the part of the State that, in his words, amounted to theft by the State from the most vulnerable. Despite the fact that most of provisions in the Bill are purely technical, there was room in it for an expression of regret.
The Minister of State also detailed arrangements for the appointment of an outside company to administer a repayment scheme. I understand that there are possible legal reasons why information on the company appointed on 1 June cannot be made public until an interval of 14 days has elapsed, presumably to allow complaints and for the Minister of State to tell the House today the name of the company. I expect that it will be a reputable company.
I am not entirely sure if the decision to appoint an outside company is correct because other Departments have been successfully involved in the repayment of other moneys. I am aware that the amount of money in question is approximately €1 billion, which is a very significant amount, and that there may be up to 60,000 or 70,000 recipients, both living and deceased. However, in light of the fact that there are over 100 administrators in the health services receiving salaries of over €100,000 and that many of them are duplicating work, it does not seem beyond the bounds of possibility to properly employ them in administering this scheme. I do not think there is very much else for these people, or at least, those individuals who are duplicating work, to do.
The Minister of State also referred to a consultation process and listed the various people, including the Ombudsman, with which he, very appropriately, has consulted. The Ombudsman has, obviously, been very unhappy with the situation for a considerable period of time. I also noted that Age Concern is not among the non-governmental organisations consulted. Would the Minister of State consider including this very valuable group in this process?
Yesterday, the Office of the Ombudsman published on its website a reprint of an article that appeared under the name of Emily O’Reilly - the Ombudsman - in The Irish Times on 5 July 2005. The title of the article was “A system that leaves the door open to injustices”. In the article, the Ombudsman listed three specific cases. According to the article:
Several factors are common to all three. The mothers were placed in nursing homes only when they had become so ill that not even assisted home care could meet their needs. All three have medical cards and were therefore entitled to public care. In each case, no public bed was available and all three were effectively forced into private care, with fees of up to €3,500 per month.
These were caring families whose mothers possessed medical cards and were, therefore, entitled to public care. No public beds were available to them and they were forced to go into private care. The article then goes on to state:
In all three cases, the value of the mother’s residence has been taken into account by the health authorities as it assessed the level of State subvention to be provided, a relatively small fraction of the cost in most cases, but of critical importance to families struggling to pay the huge private fees.
The Ombudsman described how in one case, the mother’s house remained the only home of her single middle-aged son. This is a very human situation yet the house was taken into calculation. She wrote that if the house was sold to help defray the nursing costs, he would be forced into the private rental sector. This is not a socially constructive approach. According to the article:
In another case, the mother part owns the home with her son. It has been suggested that he might “buy out” the mother’s share in order to increase the subvention, but this could bring his borrowings to an unmanageable level.
This, again, represents a very severe squeeze of an innocent individual
third case involved a relatively recent transfer of the ownership of the family home, which allowed the authorities to assess its value. This was a mean-minded way to approach the situation.
Subsequently, the Ombudsman investigated the subject and indicated that the reason was the unusually large and steady flow of complaints. More than 150 had been received since the commencement of the scheme in September 1993. She made the serious point that the complaints received since then “reflect not just the actions of individual offices or public bodies; rather they reflect the corporate response of virtually an entire sector”. We are not talking about mavericks or an unrepresentative situation. Instead, there has been a concerted approach.
Under the Act of 1970, every citizen has the right to avail of legislation——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: As it is now 5 p.m., will Senator Norris move the adjournment of the debate?
Mr. Norris: I will finish my point. These measures were taken due to financial constraints. The Ombudsman states that the Department was well aware of the situation and lists a series of doubtful practices, including the use of regulation without recourse to the Oireachtas. The Minister of State will be aware of these criticisms and the doubtful practices, which are serious. The attitude of the Department and the unreasonable promulgation of discussions with the Ombudsman are a reproach to us all.

I welcome the Minister of State back to the House, refreshed after our short break. In 1990 the Health (Nursing Home) Act was passed by the Oireachtas, coming into force in September 1993. This was intended and proclaimed to be a radical improvement on the old system. The Ombudsman’s report contradicts this, however, claiming that the Department and the health boards operated the new system in a way that was against the interests of patients and deprived them of their own money, a serious charge. She also stated that the Department was perfectly aware that its approach was legally unsound. This puts into context the remark on the other side of the House before the break that this was the best kept secret in the Civil Service. It is difficult to believe the political masters of the Civil Service were unaware of the situation, which was so widely flagged and so clear to the Ombudsman.
The doubtful practices listed include the making of regulations containing provisions which are likely to have been against the law, including at least one instance in which the likely invalidity probably had been known in advance. That goes back to the matter I have just raised. Also mentioned is the inclusion in a regulation of a provision which, it appears, was intended from the outset would not be applied. That sounds like sharp practice. A further doubtful practice was the unreasonable prolongation of discussions with the Ombudsman about practices which it appears were known from the outset to be invalid or incorrect. That is unjustifiable prevarication and it is totally disingenuous.
Finally, there was the failure of some health boards to alter practice, even where the legal advice was that the practice was incorrect and where the Ombudsman had expressed the same opinion. The health boards were advised legally this was inappropriate and the Ombudsman was expressing concern but the practice persists. No defence of ignorance could be entered.
The Ombudsman’s experience of complaints between 1993 and 1999 suggests that the underlying problems of complainants which surfaced prior to September 1993 continued to manifest themselves under this new regime. There were plenty of problems and they were flagged. A serious situation has arisen recently with regard to the law on statutory rape and at its heart was the question of communication deficits, to put it politely. It seems this also happened here in the Department. That is regrettable and I hope the Bill goes some way towards mending the situation.
The Bill contains a provision for the recipients of this money to render it back to the State if they do not need it so it can be used by the health service. That may be an honourable thing to do but I hope that no moral pressure will be put on people to do so. I salute those I heard on the radio saying they were grateful to the health services for the way in which their relatives were treated. They also said they would not wish to take this money.
As I understand it, there is no systematic inspection of public nursing homes for the elderly. If that is the case, such a system should be instituted. While this is not directly germane to the matter, people should be made aware that the development of bedsores among patients in these institutions is absolutely unnecessary and indicates bad nursing practice. Relatives often believe that bedsores are the inevitable consequence of the aged being bedridden but they are not. The matter is a cause for concern and there should be regular inspections of nursing homes.

Order of Business - 7th June 2006

Order of Business - 7th June 2006
Mr. Norris: Following from what Senator Bradford said, I agree we should continue to examine this very important area of public life. Although it was an important debate in its way, this House was prevented last week from fulfilling its constitutional role as the amending Chamber by virtue of the fact that the Dáil was allowed to evaporate and there was no possibility whatever of amendments being taken. That clearly undercuts the role of this House. We were also faced with what amounted to a guillotine. That is very regrettable. I call on the Acting Leader to ensure, through his good offices, this never happens again in this Chamber.
Mr. Coghlan: Hear, hear.
Mr. Norris: I ask that we secure copies of the Marty report and have it circulated it to all Members and have an early debate on this matter. The subject of CIA rendition flights has been ventilated in the House already. The report was published in Paris this morning. What people like myself have been saying for the past couple of years has been absolutely vindicated. Ireland has been, to use a phrase sometimes employed on this side of the House, named and shamed. It has clearly been stated that we have been implicated. I was able to do that by an analysis of the flight paths of the aeroplanes and use the information supplied by courageous people such as Tim Hourigan and Ed Hogan in Shannon. It was perfectly clear that whatever else, on a number of occasions, aircraft were used illegally to kidnap and transport people illegally to places of torture and then we facilitated them knowingly on the return journey by refuelling them. It is a cause of shame and the response of the Department of Foreign Affairs is inadequate, pusillanimous and contemptible. It says there is nothing new in it. If that is the case why did they not face up to this? I call upon the House to reinstate the commission which collapsed due to lobbying from Clare County Council. It is time this Parliament took responsibility and exhibited its authority by refusing to be dominated by people who, though elected in a local area, are not elected to this national Parliament. This network of torture facilitation throughout Europe has been described as a spider’s web.
I request a discussion on the development of the new children’s hospital. As a resident of Dublin’s northside I am, in one sense, pleased that this facility should be hosted by the Mater Hospital, it is a fine hospital with new development proposals in process. However, it has been suggested in the media that the location of the new children’s hospital was chosen because it is located in the Taoiseach’s constituency. Such matters must be addressed to set the minds of the general public at ease. Strong cases are also being made for other hospitals, such as St. James’s so we need the full facts. Professor Drumm, the chief executive of the Health Service Executive, has indicated that criteria such as public accessibility, speed of construction and so on were taken into account. If this is the case we need to clearly place this matter on the record so we know the best services are being provided on behalf of the children of this country.

I join with other Senators in calling for a debate on the report of the Council of Europe into the issue of rendition. I have only had a brief opportunity to go through the documentation that has been released today but I believe the report lacks credibility.
Mr. Norris: It does not.
Mr. Dooley: It lacks credibility because it makes allegations——
Mr. Ryan: We know who——
Mr. Dooley: ——that are baseless.
Mr. Norris: Why did Senator Dooley oppose our own inquiry then?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Dooley should be allowed to speak without interruption.
Mr. Dooley: No evidence is provided to back up the allegations. Emotive language is spattered throughout the report, such as phrases like “spider’s web” and “collusion”. This clearly shows the report lacks objectivity.
Mr. Ryan: It does not show that to me.
Mr. Dooley: It is evident that Senator Marty has come to this matter with a biased opinion and created a report around it. I strongly reject the use of the word “collusion” in reference to the Government.
Mr. Norris: It is nothing else.
Mr. Dooley: If one gets a dictionary definition of the word “collusion”, it refers to a secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal or deceitful purpose.
Mr. Norris: Exactly.
Mr. Dooley: Are we as parliamentarians prepared to accept that the Government is involved in this——
Mr. Dooley: ——considering that the Government has sought and received assurances from the US Administration——
Mr. Norris: Which are not worth much.
Mr. Dooley: ——as to whether prisoners are going through Shannon Airport?
Mr. Norris: That is not the question.
Mr. Dooley: It has been given assurances that no prisoners have been brought through the airport.
We talk about indictments and the way in which Ireland has been besmirched by this issue. In the report I have received there are three lines which use the emotive language of collusion and makes reference to the preponderance of evidence gathered. It lists Shannon Airport as being among those airports used for rendition flights and goes on to say these airports are points at which aircraft land and refuel, mostly on the way home.
The major debate in both Houses has concerned the passage of prisoners through the airport. The report found no evidence that prisoners were being transported through the airport but we are now changing the dynamics of the debate.
(Interruptions).
Mr. Dooley: We are now prepared to water it down and are concerned about the refuelling of airplanes. Where will it stop?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is Senator Dooley seeking a debate on the issue?
Mr. Dooley: It is important that we have a debate on this issue so that we can tease out the details of this report and show it up for what it is, namely, a baseless and biased report that lacks any credibility because it contains no evidence to back up its claims.
Mr. Norris: Senator Dooley has not read the report.
Mr. Norris: Can the Acting Leader clarify something?
Mr. Dardis: No.
Mr. Norris: He appeared to state that so-called extraordinary rendition was not illegal.
Mr. Dardis: I did not say that.
Mr. Norris: Can he confirm that he implied this is the Government’s position?
Mr. Dardis: I did not say that.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Norris is out of order.
Order of Business agreed to.

Criminal Law Sexual Offences Bill 2006 - Committee Stage - 2nd June 2006

Criminal Law Sexual Offences Bill 2006 - Committee Stage - 2nd June 2006
Mr. Cummins: I move amendment No. 1:
In page 1, to delete lines 19 to 21 and substitute the following:
“the victim,
(c) any person who is, for the time being, responsible for the education, supervision or welfare of the victim;
(d) any person who is more than 60 months older than the victim;”.

Mr. Norris: The recommendations of the Law Reform Commission should be listened to. There will be further attempts at clarification and definition through the courts process. I am supported in this view by an interesting article by Carol Coulter in today’s edition of The Irish Times in which she said difficulties could also arise when the courts come to define further a person in authority. She wonders how wide the net will be flung in this area. That suggests there will be scope for the court to define things. She also points to the rather loose phrase, “for the time being”. That is fairly vague. In my opinion that will certainly come in for scrutiny.
I cannot agree with what Senator Walsh said about higher sentences because of the present framing of the law. The age of consent of 17 is, in certain circumstances, too high. Without reducing that or without examining the question of a principle of consent, which I have repeatedly urged, injustice will be done to people. I would be happy with severe stringent sentences for the kind of horrible offence for which this man has rightly been sent back to jail today by a decision of the Supreme Court. However, it is plainly wrong to, for example, to increase the penalties and make the situation more perilous for two male adolescents aged 16 and a half having an experimental sexual relationship. Due to the mix and the balance, I would not agree with higher sentencing.
I wish to advert to one other matter raised by Senator Brian Hayes. I wondered when to make this point and considered not doing so until we discuss the section. It is lamentable that we now know that there is no chance whatever of any of these amendments being accepted because the Dáil has adjourned following voting on the Bill. That renders the Seanad redundant. The function of this House is to revise legislation and table amendments to it. We have been quite deliberately frustrated in this by the act of Government in allowing the Dáil to adjourn until next week.
Mr. B. Hayes: Hear, hear.
Mr. Norris: It would not have killed those in the Dáil to have been asked to wait around for a couple of hours in order to pass the amendments. It is perfectly clear that the contribution of this House is not taken seriously by the Government. I deplore that.
Our tabling of amendments is largely redundant, apart from the exercise of making the case for what may well be a re-examination of this legislation. No doubt there must be such a re-examination. We have been frustrated in our primary function as the second Chamber and that is a great pity. I look to the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, to relay to the Government this view, which I am sure is shared on all sides of the House, although some may be inhibited in expressing it. I ask him to relay to Government that, on serious issues of this nature, Seanad Éireann should be permitted to fulfil its obligations. None of use want to be in here at this hour on a beautiful summer’s day, but we have a duty to the people of the State and we should be assisted, rather than frustrated, in fulfilling our role.
Question proposed: “That section 1 stand part of the Bill.”
Mr. Norris: Although I have not tabled an amendment I wish to raise a point that should be borne in mind. The Minister explained that a sexual act meant an act consisting of sexual intercourse or buggery between persons who are not married to each other. He explained that it was crucial people could not have their married life interfered with and that it was possible for people younger than the age of consent to get married. This suggests an acknowledgement by the State that the age of 17 is not appropriate in certain situations. It is absurd that we are prepared to make exceptions. I regret that, under pressure from Fine Gael, the Government withdrew the suggestion to consider the age of consent in a rational fashion.
I am pleased the Minister has treated the House with great courtesy. A few hours would not make any difference to the application of law so his defence is not satisfactory. While I was having coffee, ordinary people, not Members of this House, stated that this House serves as a rubber stamp. Indeed, for the purposes of this Bill, this House serves as a rubber stamp but we could have done so far more effectively if our capacity to introduce amendments had been respected.

Mr. Norris: I welcome the Leader’s indication that she will be flexible and will review the time allowed for the debate. It is important that every Member who wants to make a contribution on the amendments can do so. The amendments should be taken. Senator Hayes made a good point in highlighting that less than a third of the amendments tabled in the Dáil were taken — they were not even heard. It is important that we should be given the opportunity to deal with them.
The Minister mentioned the question of mens rea. The principle of mens rea — if I am correct in my understanding of this and the Minister of State who is a barrister will be able to correct me — was contemplated by the 1885 Act but was dropped in the 1935 Act, which was odd. That is where all the trouble comes from. There was an oversight there. The Minister of State dealt with the question of honest doubt as opposed to reasonable doubt. He has perhaps short-circuited the debate on one of my amendments by giving me at least part of the answer. I will leave it at that as other Members wish to make extensive contributions on their amendments.

Mr. Cummins: I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following subsection:
“(5) Where a person guilty of an offence under this section—
(a) is not more than 24 months older than the child under the age of 17 years with whom he or she engaged or attempted to engage in a sexual act, and
(b) was not—
(i) in respect of the child under the age of 17 years with whom he or she engaged or attempted to engage in a sexual act, and
(ii) at the time of the commission of the offence, a person in authority, he or she shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €1,000.”.
This amendment seeks to reduce the seriousness of an offence committed by a person under 17 years of age. Under the present terms of the Bill if two 16 year olds have sexual intercourse not only is the female not committing an offence because of section 5 but the male is liable to a five-year prison sentence. Senator Norris and others mentioned this on Second Stage. The Bill should not aim to criminalise peer sex but to catch older sexual predators.
Mr. Norris: To add to what Senator Cummins said, on Second Stage I cited a hypothetical case which is real in prospect, namely, that a 16 year old girl could seduce a 14 year old boy and if the boy complained and his parents went to the police the girl might get off scot free while he went to jail. That is obviously a nonsense and is the kind of area in which this legislation needs to be scrutinised.
Mr. Norris: On foot of personal experience, I am in favour of financial penalties. As an innocent bystander in Parnell Street talking to a neighbour, I was punched in the face by a young person — a queer basher from the working class. The pleasant consequence of that was that I received the sum of €1,000, which has been mentioned by Senator Cummins.
I wish to refer briefly to what Senator Higgins said about the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is an interesting idea but they should go in the direction of a principle of consent rather than an age of consent because we are referring this in any event, but not to a court. As a result, the reasons will never be made public. The public will be concerned to know why, in certain cases, the Director of Public Prosecutions did not proceed. At present, there is no requirement whatever on the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to give any reason and it never does. We would, however, discover that reason in court. When the Government re-examines this matter, I hope it will at least consider the question of a principle of consent in respect of these difficult matters.
In a case such as that which has been satisfactorily resolved today, there could not be the slightest question of doubt. Nobody, no matter how liberal, would ever, in my opinion, suggest that a 12 year old girl who was deliberately made drunk and who was then interfered with while asleep or in the process of being sick gave consent. One could not possibly imagine that there was consent in that case. There is no doubt in my mind — I do not think there could be any doubt in anybody’s mind — about that but there are cases that should be referred to court to investigate the entire matter of consent. I do not believe that the Director of Public Prosecutions is totally satisfactory precisely because he — or, in the future, possibly she — is not required to explain the reasons.
Business of Seanad.
Mr. B. Hayes: On a point of order——
Mr. Norris: The Leader gave a commitment that the time allowed for debate would be reconsidered.
Mr. Fitzgerald: I received an assurance.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: “In respect of each of the sections not disposed of, that the section or, as appropriate, the section as amended is hereby agreed to in committee, that the Schedule and the Title are hereby agreed to in committee ——
Mr. B. Hayes: A point of order has been raised by at least four of my colleagues. Standing Orders are absolutely clear on this matter. Where a point of order is raised, and there are now four Senators on their feet, the Chair must give way to the point of order.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: ——that the Bill, as amended, is accordingly reported to the House, that Report Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed.” I cannot hear a point of order while putting the question.
Mr. B. Hayes: The question cannot be put until the point of order is heard.
Mr. J. Walsh: As Acting Leader, I propose an extension until 7.30 p.m.
Mr. Norris: The House is in uproar on all sides.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I understand the Leader is in the Houses but she is not in the Chamber. The Order of Business was amended to allow this debate to be extended to 7.15 p.m.
Mr. Fitzgerald: I put a question to the Leader while she was in the Chamber and she stated that I would have the opportunity to speak on section 5. With the deepest respect, I challenge the ruling of the Leas-Chathaoirleach and his authority to put this question.
Mr. B. Hayes: On a point of order, it is a long-standing precedent in this House that the Government spokesperson acts as Acting Leader in this House. The Acting Leader has proposed an extension.
Mr. J. Walsh: On a point of order, the Leas-Chathaoirleach clearly put the question of a review at 7.15 p.m. to the Leader. That was agreed by the House 30 minutes ago.
Mr. Norris: This House decides its own business.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Leader has not come into the Chamber to extend the time.
Mr. Norris: She stated that it would be reviewed, not that she would review it. The Acting Leader has proposed an extension that has unanimous approval in the Chamber. There is open revolt in this House.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Leader has not amended the Order of Business.
Mr. Fitzgerald: I propose a deferral until the Leader can return to the Chamber.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Leader is arriving.
Ms O’Rourke: I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for putting the question, which was correct. I propose to extend this debate to 7.30 p.m. but not beyond that.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I withdraw the question. Is the amended Order of Business agreed? Agreed.
Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Remaining Stages.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Mr. Norris: I move amendment No. 6:
In page 3, subsection (5), line 8, to delete “honestly” and substitute “reasonably”.
The Minister has partly answered this in his response to understanding the mind of the offender in respect of guilt and responsibility. There can be situations where an accused person tells the court he or she honestly believed the recipient of his or her intentions was of a certain age. It would be difficult to know if that belief was honestly held.
There are situations in which the defendant can state a defence of honest mistake but it may not be true. It would be much easier for a judge to determine if it was reasonable. Even if the defendant could state that he or she did not know, in some cases the defendant should have known. If we are serious about protecting children, we ought to have a situation where someone can be penalised for acting with what, at the minimum, is gross irresponsibility. That is not covered by the term “honestly”, but it would be covered by that of “reasonably”.
Mr. Norris: I move amendment No. 8:
In page 3, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following subsection:
“(10) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section—
(a) where a person who has attained the age of 15 years engages or attempts to engage in a sexual act with another person who has attained that age and the difference between the ages of those persons is not greater than 2 years, neither such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section;
(b) it shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that he or she honestly believed that, at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, each of the persons concerned had attained the age of 15 and that the difference between the ages of those persons was not greater than 2 years;
(c) where, in proceedings for an offence under this section, it falls to the court to consider whether the defendant honestly held the belief referred to in paragraph (b), the court shall have regard to the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for the defendant’s so believing and all other relevant circumstances.” .

This goes to the heart of the question of age. It is quite wrong to enact criminal penalties and terms of imprisonment for young consenting people. It flies in the face of the lived reality of this Republic’s people. We are criminalising people who are not criminals.
I feel very strongly about the case of gay people in this age group. I have wide experience through national organisations and counselling services. When this legislation is reviewed, it is terribly important that the Government consult the gay community and its organisations. I have come across injustice in this area before. I dealt with a case where a man had a sexual relationship not with an under age person but with someone who was slightly mentally handicapped. He was sentenced to a lengthy period of imprisonment. The degree of mental handicap was marginal and the man was well capable of giving consent. It transpired subsequently that this young man had distributed his favours fairly widely around the city and had made a practice of attempting to blackmail people, which he had done successfully on other occasions. However, the person who was sent to jail simply refused to cough up. This is just an illustration which is not directly related to the Bill but analogous.
Criminalising two people between the ages of 15 and 17 and sending at least one to jail, or both in the case of gay persons, is a complete nonsense. One difficulty of this type of legislation is that it is being introduced in a period of heightened emotions. Unfortunately there is also an element of partisanship and political point-scoring. The age of consent is far too important a matter to be made the substance of political point-scoring or partisanship of any kind because it affects all citizens.
I must acknowledge that I filched this amendment from the other House because I believed it was good. I should have removed the word “honestly” and substituted “reasonably” but I failed to do so.