Order of Business - 27th May 2008

Order of Business - 27th May 2008

I join Senator Ormonde in asking again for a debate on the Lisbon
treaty, although not quite in the light she wants it. I would like a more balanced debate and I
look forward to an opportunity to provide some of that balance. We have not had a balanced
debate on the matter in the House. I will say more about that later.
I am very grateful to my colleagues, including Senators Frances Fitzgerald, O’Toole, Boyle
and others, for commenting on the absence of legislation about civil partnership. This is extraordinary, and the remarks of the Minister, Deputy Gormley, last night are very worrying. They at least prove I was right to remove my Bill as a mark of the distress I feel at the contempt
with which this subject is being treated. The House was clearly misled.
It is not good enough to say we will now have it in September and it was affected by a
change of Government. It cannot be just that as we were told the matter would be resolved by
31 March, which was well before the change. We have not got the heads of the Bill yet. We
were told clearly and categorically that we would have them, and this is necessary for us to
have the debate.
It has also been suggested that the problem may be due to changes in the Cabinet, particularly
in the post of Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It is more than a decade
since we had a debate in this House which led to decriminalisation in this regard. The then
Fianna Fa´ il Government distinguished itself, and in particular the then Minister, Ma´ ire
Geoghegan-Quinn, in her strong cry for liberty and equality. This was reinforced subsequently
by the then Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern.
The remarks of Deputy Bertie Ahern on that subject in that debate were recently resurrected.
A group of people from various parties came out with equally regressive attitudes. I
will say without naming anybody that one of the most vociferous people there subsequently
approached me and told me he had revised his opinion in light of the fact that his son told him
he was also gay. There is not a single Member whose extended families are not touched by
this. We should show a little human decency in this regard.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has made his point.
Senator David Norris: The majority of my colleagues on that side spoke very well on that.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has made the point to the Leader.
Senator David Norris: The other person suggested was Deputy Coughlan, a very intelligent
person. Let it be remembered that within the course of the last Government, she had the
unenviable distinction of being the only Minister in Europe to have introduced legislation
discriminating against the social rights of gay citizens in this country. That is why people like
myself are worried.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has made his point.
Senator David Norris: I acknowledge that we will be discussing Thornton Hall on Thursday,
which I welcome. It would be foolish not to acknowledge the document, Patients, Not Prisoners,
produced by the Central Mental Hospital carers’ group, the Irish Mental Health Coalition and
Schizophrenia Ireland. I ask other Members to acquire it. It discusses co-location of the mental
hospital, which is very worrying to many people.
We should consider Burma again in light of the appalling fact that the junta has extended
by six months the imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator’s time is up.
Senator David Norris: It has also refused to allow non-governmental organisations to travel
beyond Rangoon.

Order of Business - 22nd May 2008

Order of Business - 22nd May 2008

Senator David Norris: I congratulate our colleague, Senator Bacik, on raising the question of whether it is suitable to imprison women for minor offences. I regret male Members of the Houses are not invited to the meeting on this later because it is important that men, who are coequals as legislators, should be involved in these discussions. The overwhelming majority of the prison population is male and an overwhelming element of that population comes from certain inner city districts in our principal cities. I would like that issue examined and not just the rights of women because what is sauce for the gander is also sauce for the goose.
I refer to the Lisbon treaty, which has been extensively discussed on the Order of Business. Allegations have been made that people have not been told the truth. Sometimes this is the result of a misunderstanding or misinformation but a case I took some years ago to the European Court of Human Rights has been widely canvassed as being a reason for voting "Yes". The case was taken under Council of Europe, not European Union, rules to the European Court of Human Rights, not the European Court of Justice.
I have raised serious questions about militarisation that will continue under the treaty. That is one of the reasons I have considerable problems about it. Will the Leader ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to come to the House to clarify the position of Enterprise Ireland vis-á-vis the European Defence Agency? Who is representing Enterprise Ireland at meetings of the EDA? What type of meetings of the EDA are being attended by EI? How many EDA meetings has EI attended? The Minister for Defence should also attend the House to answer questions. What projects is Ireland involved in within the EDA, which used to be called the European Armaments Group? What do the projects entail? What is their purpose? What are the financial implications for those participating? What, if any, financial contribution is Ireland making or expected to make? Can we have clarity on these matters? Is Ireland part of the EDA's intergovernmental regime for defence procurement? If so, why was there no discussion in the Dáil on the decision to join the EDA or this regime? These are serious matters.
I was laughed at in the House and told I was a flake for raising the question of the increasing militarisation of Europe under the Lisbon treaty. I have clear and specific questions and I would like the relevant Ministers to come to the House to answer them. Will the Minister for Defence define what is "common defence"? I would like him to give us a detailed briefing on the financial implications of Ireland's membership of the EDA The people of Ireland are entitled to clear, factual answers, which should be given in advance of the vote on the treaty.

Private Members Business - Transport 21 - 21st May 2008

Private Members Business - Transport 21 - 21st May 2008
Senator David Norris: I thank Senator Hannigan for sharing his time with me. It is very important, even though times may be difficult, that the Government keeps its nerve and invests in the long-term infrastructure of this country. We have had situations in the past, particularly with the metro, where it was clear that the project was the only logical, sensible solution that would effectively address the traffic congestion in Dublin city but it fell off the agenda because of economic difficulties. The Government must keep its courage on this one.
I am very disappointed, like other Members, that the time for the implementation of the metro has been extended by another two years. We must have absolute commitment on this project. While I am on the subject of the metro, much concern has been expressed about disruption to St. Stephen's Green. I understand that it must take place and I have lost a few votes by writing back to constituents and telling them that I am in favour of the metro and that the green must be dug up. However, it can be done in a sensitive way. I know, for example, in the Middle East that even mature trees can be lifted, tubbed, conserved and then put back in place. I would like a commitment from the Government that this will happen and that the disruption to St. Stephen's Green will be temporary and that the park, which is very much beloved by Dubliners and all Irish citizens, will be reinstated and there will not be ongoing, ugly disturbances. Any entrances to the metro station should be appropriate and, if possible, located outside the perimeter of the green itself. Having said all that, the metro is essential.
I suggest that the Dublin transport authority might take into account the views of Mr. Cormac Rabbitte and examine his Dargan project proposals. Mr. Rabbitte is a serious player in this area and has had very sensible ideas. Governments tend to catch up with him after the event. He has come up with a proposal that would provide us with more than the metro as currently outlined, would be cheaper and would be a fully integrated orbital metro network.
I spoke on the Dublin Transport Authority Bill in this House and was sorry the Minister did not agree to at least one of my amendments which related to the off-street parking of commercial buses, especially private ones. It is insane to have buses all around Mountjoy Square, for example, where there is a crèche and a children's playground. It is very dangerous and I do not see why there should not be a requirement on the bus companies to provide off-street parking for their fleets. The Minister responded that the provision existed in the legislation to which I respond that the wording should be changed from "may" to "shall", that is, the Minister shall require the companies to provide off-street parking because it is a public necessity.
We also discussed the issue of cycle lanes on O'Connell Street. If we are going to provide cycle lanes, there must be consistency and coherence. There is no point in having a cycle lane that starts at one point and then evaporates at a set of traffic lights. Cycle lanes and cyclists must be protected. I have been knocked off my bicycle not once, but twice on O'Connell Street, with the result that I do not cycle down it any more.
I raised a matter during the debate on the Dublin Transport Authority Bill but I know the Minister of State at the Department of Transport is a good Dubliner and may take it on board. This is a city of which we can be proud but not of the Dublin Port tunnel, to which Senator Ellis referred. While it has been effective in removing the articulated traffic from the city centre, its treatment is appalling. The entrance, which is one of the first sights of public note one sees coming from the airport, is ugly, amateurish and stupid. It looks like a bit of an old hoover that has landed from outer space. Why not address it properly and put it in a proper architectural context, to show that we are proud of it? Furthermore, when we are building the metro, let us not build cheap stations. Let us, for a few pence more in global terms, build decent stations which can be used as exhibition halls for reproductions of some of the great treasures we have in our museums.
Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): The Senator's time is well up and the train is moving on.
Senator David Norris: In that case, I will just mention, en passant, the M3, which is a frightful business. The Minister of State might, if he has a spare moment, read what I said on the Order of Business today about the involvement of Kellogg, Brown & Root in it. We are paying some pretty questionable American companies to desecrate part of the historic landscape around the Hill of Tara.

Statements on the HSE Child Welfare and Protection Services - 21st May 2008

Statements on the HSE Child Welfare and Protection Services - 21st May 2008
Senator David Norris: I thank my colleague, Senator Bacik, for sharing some of her time with me. I also welcome the Minister of State to the House and wish him well in his career. I think he is a very appropriate choice because I happen to know him slightly but I have also been very impressed by the highly capable, intelligent and humane way he has dealt with matters such as this and other politically related matters in the media in recent weeks. As they say in the country, he comes from a good stable. With a father and an uncle like his, he could not but start with good credibility in this area.
I was especially impressed by one part of his speech where he said that: "Two days after the broadcast of the "Prime Time Investigates" programme I met with senior officials from the HSE to discuss, among other topics, the issues raised by that report." It may not be that everything is satisfactory. We know precisely from what Senator Fitzgerald said in a most impassioned speech and also from what Senator Bacik said that things are far from well. That is a good example of what the Minister of State called for in the case of children - early intervention. He intervened early, took action and met people.
I am concerned about other things. Senator Bacik put on the record of the House a number of matters about which I am concerned, as did Senator Fitzgerald. I have been briefed in this area previously by people who are morbidly concerned that if they are employed in this area, their managerial level will find out about it. Will the Minister of State seek to provide a whistle-blower's charter for people within the Health Service Executive? However good "Prime Time Investigates" is, it should not come directly from a television programme but from within and from consultation.

People should feel protected when they voice legitimate concerns to Members of this House. It is not appropriate for Members of the Oireachtas to receive submissions from people who plead with us not to reveal their identities for fear of damaging their careers.
The Minister of State spoke of support for families to reduce the number of children who may become dependent on State care. That is not sufficient and is far too weak. While I abhor comments such as those reported in the British House of Commons that the most dangerous place to be is in the mother's womb, which is a frightful comment to make on the abortion debate, we must be very careful about suggesting that the family is the safest place for a child because that is not always so. Child abuse very frequently takes place within the family. Children need to be protected within the family but if a difficulty exists, it is not appropriate just to produce supports while the child remains in situ. I am thinking here of the case of Ms Maria Colville whose return by the social services to her family resulted in her murder. As a result of that case, Seanad Éireann introduced the guardian ad litem clause to protect vulnerable children in that area. Of the 5,000 children who are at risk, there are many for whom no plans are made or such plans that are made are not followed through. Those children have been seriously let down and are a parallel to the children who were abused in institutions.
I wish to ask the Minister of State a number of questions, one or two of which have already been posed by Senator Bacik. Can he tell the House the percentage of children in the care of the Health Service Executive with an allocated social worker? How many cases does the Minister of State and the HSE believe is appropriate, in terms of good social work practice, for a social worker to have on his or her caseload? How many cases, on average, are allocated to HSE social workers in child and family services? How many cases currently are open within the HSE social work department in child and family services? How many cases are unallocated within the service? I would be grateful if the Minister of State would answer these simple and direct questions.

Statements on the WTO Negotiations - 21st May 2008

Statements on the WTO Negotiations - 21st May 2008
Senator David Norris: I am grateful to my colleague, Senator Joe O'Toole, for sharing his time with me. I heard speakers describe Commissioner Mandelson as acting in a very British manner. This was an unnecessary comment. We should analyse what he is doing. I do not know whether it is British. I am not sure what "British" means in this sense. He has certainly behaved with a lack of caution and taken a fairly bullying approach. Perhaps it links in to the colonial past but we associate ourselves with it in many ways when it puts pressure or a squeeze on some of the least developed countries on the planet. I am glad Senator Joe O'Toole raised this point.
The Minister's speech contains an interesting paragraph where he discusses safeguarding production based in the EU to meet future demands of our population for food and bioenergy. I am glad this was mentioned because population is rarely mentioned, and it must be examined. The problems for departments in every country go back to the explosion in population, about which nobody is talking. The population is at twice the level it was at when I entered Trinity College. During my adult life, the population of the planet has doubled. Perhaps it will do so again during the next 50 years. This is what is putting pressure on agriculture resources.
Senator Joe O'Toole is correct about the dumping of food on the Third World. It is not a level playing field. Often in politics the level playing field approach is advocated. Our activities as part of the European Union mean we are part of an attempt to impose economic partnership agreements with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries which exceed the demands of the WTO. The demands of the WTO are even unfair, as has been indicated by Senator O'Toole. How much more unfair then are those demands which exceed them and to which we are party? I appeal to the Minister to examine this liberalisation of trade in the selfish interests of the European Union which goes even further than the WTO.

These agreements, as they stand, do not constitute development friendly partnerships, as they go beyond what is required for compliance.
A number of west African ministers have deplored the message exhorted by the European Commission in a statement following a meeting of theirs recently. The African Union Assembly declaration stated, "The process leading to the conclusion of interim EPAs did not build on what was negotiated earlier and, in particular, political and economic pressures are being exerted by the European Commission". Mr. Mandelson was referred to again in the context of the tantrums he threw and bullying engaged in. I have three requests to make of Government. We should back independent evaluations of any impact assessment of what has been agreed in the economic partnership agreements. There should be renegotiation of any aspect and we should reduce it at least to the minimum necessary for WTO compliance. We should allow for complete flexibility for developing countries in any negotiations on trade-related issues such as intellectual property to be led by a developing country. This flows directly from our practice, as Senator O'Toole said, of not only protecting our own farmers but disadvantaging the poorest and least advantaged on the planet.

Order of Business - 21st May 2008

Order of Business - 21st May 2008

Senator David Norris: I strongly support Senator Coffey on his call for debate on the fate of Waterford Glass, which is one of our most historic industries and represents Ireland all over the world. Just yesterday, visitors to the House admired the beautiful Waterford Glass chandeliers that grace this Chamber. I have, however, some concern with regard to Government intervention. We must look back, for example, at its intervention in the case of the banks. That was highly unpopular with taxpayers and the moneys were never repaid. Why should capitalist enterprise be propped up by taxpayers?
I support a debate, but it must be nuanced. Sir Anthony O'Reilly and his empire have made clear their advocacy of the open market and people do not want to shovel bucket loads of cash into his already overloaded pockets in order to sustain Waterford Glass. If taxpayers' money is put into the company, there should be certain guarantees provided. Either the company should be partly nationalised - I would be proud of it as a State enterprise and hope it would work - or guarantees should be provided to the State as a preferential creditor. If the company is an embarrassment to Sir Anthony and he is making a commercial decision that he can no longer support it, let him give the shares to the State. He has plenty of other things in his back pocket. I understand he has previously supported Waterford Glass out of his own pocket. I appreciate his generosity in doing that and understand that he may not wish to do it any longer.
Will the Leader confirm something he said yesterday and give me a date for a discussion in the House with the Minister on the question of the location of the Abbey Theatre? The editorial of Monday's The Irish Times mentioned that the recent unveiling of the proposal for the Carlton site in O'Connell Street illustrates the necessity for a landmark cultural component to counterface the commercial overload of the plan for this key location. I understand a major British retail force will be located on the Carlton site, but there has been no mention of a cultural aspect to the site or any mention of the Abbey Theatre.
I call for debate on the National Roads Authority and its attitude towards the environment. This is biodiversity week, but consider how it is being celebrated in County Meath. The National Roads Authority has contacted Meath County Council and it has franchised out the spraying of the hedgerows with 2,4-D, a highly toxic chemical. This is killing nestlings, destroying a huge variety of plants and fouling the groundwater in the area. One of the reasons given for the spraying was that the massive scale of the motorworks in the area has disturbed noxious weeds so that seeds have been distributed everywhere. The NRA is behind this disturbance. The contract for the spraying has been given to Kellogg, Brown & Root, KBR, which is owned by Halliburton, whose chief executive is-----
An Cathaoirleach: No names please.
Senator David Norris: -----the man described by Hillary Clinton as Darth Vader, Dick Cheney. Therefore, the National Roads Authority is employing Darth Vader to poison the landscape of Meath to celebrate biodiversity week. What a wonderful island we live on.

Statements on Burma - 20th May 2008

Statements on Burma - 20th May 2008


Senator David Norris: I join with my colleagues in welcoming my former comrade on the Joint Committee on Transport, the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, to the House. I congratulate him on his elevation and also Deputy Micheál Martin on his assignation to the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is a plum job in Government, even though one must sometimes confront difficult and tragic situations such as this.
This is one of the situations where we are all united. I listened with great interest to the thoughtful contribution of Senator Cummins and also to the considered view of Senator Ann Ormonde. I compliment her on continuing to speak when she had some difficulty, which she courageously managed to overcome. It is welcome that she put her views on the record because it makes it clear that from the Minister down we are all singing from the same hymn sheet.
This was a natural catastrophe. A series of elements must be considered because this was predicted. Two, three and four years ago people talked about the places that would be most vulnerable in the world in terms of global warming and the change in weather systems. A low-lying delta region, the Irrawaddy Delta, was obviously one that would be focussed on. This has happened before and General Tan Shwe ran away from the place where he created the capital, Yangon. He would not face his people in the moment of tragedy.
I am often harshly critical of the Chinese Government and its approach but what a contrast there is in the way the Chinese leadership rolled up its sleeves and showed solidarity with its people when it was confronted by a parallel disaster. That disaster has repercussions for this situation because Chinese attention is understandably and inevitably diverted from its neighbour to coping with its own situation. China will be less able to co-operate with the rest of the world in exerting pressure but it is part of the key. It has given massive military aid to the Burmese Government, which I deplore and regret, and is involved in trade in oil and gas. China is a key player, so this is a double tragedy.
The existing situation was awful. Thanks to the regime there has been accelerating poverty - an impoverishment of its people - ever since it got into power. It continues to persecute all the democratic elements, the best known of which is the heroic woman Aung San Suu Kyi, of whom, I am sorry to say, we have heard little during the recent crisis. I sincerely hope her well-being is protected and that we ensure this through our diplomatic agencies.
Before this cyclone occurred, 75% of the people lived below the poverty line and one third of Burmese children were at least moderately malnourished. The army had the largest forcibly conscripted child soldier element in the world. They cared little for their own people but managed to stagger on because of resources and links with surrounding countries. Thailand has the highest trade balance with the Burmese, principally because of the Thai Government's purchase of natural gas, which is considerable. Thailand is the principle country propping up of the Burmese regime. In 2005, the Burmese Government imposed a massive increase in the domestic price of the essential supplies of oil and gas.
Last autumn, we discussed the riots that took place when a peaceful demonstration led by Buddhist monks was savagely attacked and repressed by the Burmese Government. I drew a contrast between the behaviour of the Chinese Government and the Burmese Government but there is also an internal contrast to be drawn between the ruthless efficiency in the way they galvanised military resources to repress their people and their impotence in confronting this disaster and coming positively to the aid of their people. It is an obscenity that they leave planeloads of aid, food and medical supplies stranded on the tarmac in surrounding countries, that they inhibit the issuing of visas and that they continue their profligate lifestyles despite the fact that the Burmese people are suffering.
There is a role of dishonour, a role of international shame that does not stop with members of the Burmese junta. After the repression and violence visited on the Burmese people, India, China, Malaysia and Thailand continued to negotiate financial arrangements with the Burmese junta.

Perhaps they thought this was "constructive engagement", a phrase I first heard in the context of dealings with the military regime in Burma but, does it work? When Burma joined the Association of South East Asian Nations, ASEAN, in 1997 there were 210,000 Burmese refugees in neighbouring countries. Before the cyclone hit and, following this "constructive engagement" by the ASEAN countries, this figure had almost tripled to 750,000.
I referred earlier to the issue of oil. The situation in this regard is instructive and interesting and goes back as far 1871 when the British, who do not have a particularly good record either, were in control and the Rangoon Oil Company was established. During the closing decades of the last century natural gas was discovered. Various groups were involved including the British, French and the Americans. The American companies involved, Texaco and Unocal, behaved in a brutal manner and collaborated with the military junta in the exploitation of the natural resources. This is important because it calls into question the words of President Bush and his wife. Correct though they were, the source of those words actually pollutes them because they have no moral status whatever.
I will provide another contrast for the House, namely, that between President Bush's fine words in chiding the Burmese authorities and his record with regard to Hurricane Katrina. The manner in which he abandoned his own racially inferior groups, as no doubt they were seen in some sections following the hurricane, is a mirror image of what happened in Burma. Let us consider further Unocal, the oil company to which I referred earlier.
In 1996, a human rights suit was filed against Unocal by local villagers whose men were conscripted, forcibly dislodged from their land and whose women were raped, with their children taken away as soldiers. This was to facilitate the construction of a $1.2 billion gas pipeline to take natural gas into Thailand. The suit was settled by Unocal in 2004, which means it admitted a degree of liability, as a result of the unearthing of the situation by international agencies. One woman gave personal testimony of how the soldiers came to her home, shot her husband and killed her baby. Others said their neighbours had been executed in front of them because they refused to leave the area Unocal wanted and so on.
In 1995, the United Nations put out warnings about serious human rights abuses following which Texaco left Burma but Unocal remained and continues to retain a 28% share in the pipeline. Members may wonder where this is leading; it is leading directly to the Bush Administration. The US State Department acknowledged that slave labour was being used and defended Unocal against the suit taken by the local villagers because it believed it was inimical to United States foreign policy and, in particular, to the so-called war on terror.
There are lessons for us all. The international community needs to get involved in the way we have. I was interested to hear the outrage expressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, whom I have known for many years and who is usually moderate and diplomatic, in the final paragraph of his speech when he excoriated the regime in Burma. I pay tribute to the local people about whom we have heard very little. They have had to struggle through mud and wreckage. We have all heard the descriptions of forests pelted by the cyclone to such an extent the trees were like groups of stalks and of the stench of death coming from the corpses. The scale of the disaster is such that approximately 130,000, possibly 200,000 or 250,000 people have been affected. One phrase seems to sum up the scale of the devastation. Even the efforts now being weakly consented to by the Burmese authorities were described by a local Burmese man as, "Like throwing sesame seeds at a hungry elephant". That is the scale of this disaster. It is welcome that we are all united in our support for the tragic situation in which the Burmese people find themselves and in condemnation of the regime there. I hope to God that tragic as is the situation, it may at last put the skids under that lousy government.

Order of Business - 20th May 2008

Order of Business - 20th May 2008

Senator David Norris: If the Punch and Judy show is over may I state that frequently in this House I stated that both Bush and Blair were liars and nobody ever stopped me. Perhaps this is because they are.

An Cathaoirleach: On the Order of Business.

Senator David Norris: With regard to Libertas and the “No” vote campaign, Senator Regan referred to an interesting piece about the background of a number of these people. A majority of them are employed by-----

An Cathaoirleach: We are not having this debate on the Order of Business.

Senator David Norris: -----an American armaments firm. I will make this point.

An Cathaoirleach: We will debate the matter this week.

Senator David Norris: This strengthens the point I made in this House with regard to my reservations about the military aspects of the Lisbon treaty and the development of the European armaments group and its desire to go into competition with the United States armaments industry. This would be a clear explanation as to why people with links to the United States arms industry-----

An Cathaoirleach: We are not having a debate on the Lisbon treaty today.

Senator David Norris: -----do not want it passed. I do not want it to pass, but for other reasons.

An Cathaoirleach: We are not having a debate on the Lisbon treaty on the Order of Business.

Senator David Norris: I was clarifying an issue for Senator Regan.
I join with colleagues in calling for a debate on the collapse of the social housing programme. This calls into question our very values as a society. We can have the Shelbourne Hotel and the Thornton Hall super-prison but apparently we are spancilled when we try to do something for the most disadvantaged sections of our society.
I happen to live close to some of the areas concerned and I admire and respect the people there. People living on Sean McDermott Street and Dominic Street got together, formed committees and negotiated. Some of their houses and apartments have been vacated and have begun to be demolished. However, once again the prospect of new housing is snatched away from them. Apparently, one of the problems is the increased size of apartments and standards of heating efficiency. This suggests that people are not entitled to a decent standard.

An Cathaoirleach: Is Senator Norris seeking a debate?

Senator David Norris: Yes, because the Government is responsible. It allowed the housing industry to overheat and encouraged it by giving incentives to pals. The new Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen, has a challenge to resolve this problem and reassure the Irish people that the standards are those of which he spoke so movingly in Clara, County Offaly.
No. 38 on the Order Paper is linked because it is an attempt to face up to developers. It is a motion in the name of some Independent Members on the location of the Abbey Theatre. This situation has changed again because of the planning and development issues at the north end of O’Connell Street. There is an opportunity for our national theatre not to be hidden away at the behest of sectoral interests in the IFSC but to be placed where it belongs in the centre of the principal thoroughfare of Dublin. Will the Leader ask the Minister responsible to come to the House to explain where the theatre will be sited?

Dublin Transport Authority Bill 2008 - Committee Stage Resumed - 13th May 2008

Dublin Transport Authority Bill 2008: Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 40.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 37:

In page 34, subsection (1), line 17, to delete paragraph (a).

- (Senator David Norris).
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I welcome the Minister for Transport. I congratulate him and wish him well on his reappointment.

Minister for Transport (Deputy Noel Dempsey): I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 37 to 41, inclusive, are being discussed together. Senator Norris was in possession.

Senator David Norris: I do not need to rehearse much of what I had to say on the previous day. This is a series of related amendments that deal with an issue a number of other colleagues have also raised, that is, the exclusion of elected Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas and also of local authorities from membership of the Dublin transport authority. A Member of European Parliament would, by definition, be unsuitable because he or she would be out of the country for long periods. I am not so sure about an outright ban on Members of the Oireachtas because we have a good, active transport committee. I think that to bar a member of that committee from the Dublin transport authority would be regrettable. Barring a person because he or she is a member of a local authority will diminish the possibility for democratic pressure and for people to have their say. As other Members pointed out, if we have an elected Lord Mayor he or she would be disbarred from participating in the Dublin transport authority. I always assumed that the point of having an elected mayor would be for the position to be along the lines of the elected mayoralty in London. Transport has been a key element in the policy mandate of the Mayor of London.
That is all I need to say and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Senator John Ellis: The last time we debated this I raised the issue of the exclusion of local authority members because I feel it is wrong and we must do something to deal with it. It is very unfair that local authority members should be debarred; at least Oireachtas Members have the right to attend an Oireachtas committee and can raise questions when they do so. In this case even the Lord Mayor could be debarred and that is wrong. I appeal to the Minister to further examine this matter before Report Stage and, if possible, allow local authority members to be members of the board.

Senator David Norris: At least those in Dublin and surrounding counties.

Deputy Noel Dempsey: We have had this discussion already and I do not think we need delay further on it. I indicated last time, when this matter arose, that I am sympathetic to the view of Senators that local authority members should not be excluded from membership of the Dublin transport authority. As I said last week, nothing in section 14, which concerns membership of the authority, precludes the Minister for Transport from appointing a member of a local authority to the Dublin transport authority. I wish to emphasise this. In this section I do not wish to go down the route of naming individuals or classes of people who I think should or should not be a member of the authority. I wish only to use the generic description of people who have an interest, expertise or skill in this area.
In deference to the arguments made by Senators, including Senator Ellis and others, I am indicating my willingness to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage to remove the provisions in section 40 that have the effect of prohibiting a member of a local authority from serving as a member of the Dublin transport authority. As Senator Ellis said, I will retain the provisions relating to Members of the Oireachtas because we are elected to do a full-time job that is onerous enough. Senator Ellis pointed out that Oireachtas Members have the opportunity to appear before committees and I will not change the provisions relating to Oireachtas Members.
Senator Norris raised a point relating to the meaning of section 40(1)(a) and he is concerned that the distinction made may not be clear enough. I have asked the parliamentary draftsman to re-examine this and, if necessary, I will introduce an amendment on Report Stage. The initial view I was given is that this provision is just meant to distinguish between the Taoiseach’s nominees and elected Members of Seanad Éireann. I will see if it is necessary to make the distinction or if this could give rise to confusion. On this basis I ask the Senators to withdraw their amendments as they can be discussed further on Report Stage, if necessary.

Senator Brendan Ryan: In our previous discussions on Committee Stage we agreed that further substantive debate could take place today, under this section, on the issue raised in amendment No. 21, which I tabled. It was felt that the areas were related, in terms of the membership of local authority members.
Given the Minister’s comments today on not excluding members of the board of the Dublin transport authority who subsequently become local authority members, could he agree to having a local authority member on the board by right? This was the thrust of amendment No. 21, which I agreed to withdraw last week on the basis that we would have further discussion on it. I intend to press this amendment on Report Stage.

Senator David Norris: I will not delay the House but I am glad the Minister referred to our previous discussion on Committee Stage on section 40(1)(a). We are invited to hand in our nominations. This may only directly affect the six university seats in the Seanad but we are invited by the provost to hand in our nominations. This means we are nominated and even a person who fails to gain a seat in the House would be automatically ruled out.
I welcome the fact that the Minister is again examining the question of local authorities. I have mixed views about barring Oireachtas Members, though I take the Minister’s point that we have plenty to do in these Houses. If membership of the Dublin transport authority is really a full-time, professional commitment, Oireachtas Members should be ruled out of serving on it.

Senator Paschal Donohoe: I ask the Minister, when he is making the amendment he suggested regarding the participation of local authority members, to keep the remit for such members as wide as possible. I am aware that in other parts of the legislation the Minister is quite specific in suggesting that members of the regional authorities or assemblies should be involved in the Dublin transport authority. In any amendment the Minister makes in this regard, he should not be prescriptive about the role a member of a local authority may have. In many cases “ordinary” members of city and county councils may have much expertise in this area because they are members of strategic policy committees or because of their professional backgrounds. However, they may not be members of regional assemblies due to the demands of jobs they hold.
I ask the Minister to provide as broad a remit as possible, to allow all members of the local authority to participate, when he decides how to amend this legislation. This would be a welcome change.

Senator John Ellis: I feel that if we dropped section 40(1)(a) entirely and changed section 40(1)(b) to read “an elected Member or nominated Member of either House of the Oireachtas or the European Parliament”, we could get out of the spot of trouble we are in.

Deputy Noel Dempsey: We can discuss how this will be done on Report Stage. It is possible that we could make this very simple, though sometimes people do not like simple language in legislation.

Senator David Norris: I do.

Deputy Noel Dempsey: If a person becomes a Member of either House of the Oireachtas or the European Parliament that solves the problem. We will look for an agreed way forward on this. I will give consideration to Senator Donohoe’s point. 4 o’clock

Senator David Norris: This opens the whole discussion on Members of the Oireachtas. Senator Donohoe mentioned people with major professional commitments who may still be members of local authorities. That would mean they could not give a full-time commitment. If that is to be opened up, there would be a need to also question membership of the Oireachtas because there is a contradiction there.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 38 to 41, inclusive, not moved.
Section 40 agreed to.
Sections 41 and 42 agreed to.
SECTION 43.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendment No. 41a is in the names of Senators Brendan Ryan, Alex White, Michael McCarthy, Phil Prendergast, Dominic Hannigan, Alex Kelly and David Norris.

Senator Brendan Ryan: I move amendment No. 41a:

In page 36, line 12, to delete paragraph (a).

Senator David Norris: Is this amendment in opposition to the section?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: It is amendment No. 41a, on an additional list, already circulated on 8 May.

Senator Brendan Ryan: This amendment seeks to delete section 43, paragraph (a). An immunity for individuals in good faith on behalf of the authority, in accordance with section 80, would not be objectionable. However, a blanket immunity against any proceedings in respect of the authority itself for failure to act appears to be open to constitutional challenge, according to our advice. The Minister has an amendment which is to delete the section in full. I hope it is in recognition of our amendment and if so, I thank him for that.

Deputy Noel Dempsey: The bad news for Senator Ryan is that when we looked at this again, it was decided that I should withdraw my amendments. I take it we are taking these two together, amendment No. 41a and my amendment to delete section 43. The Government is withdrawing the proposal for the deletion of the section, therefore, Senator Ryan and I are not ad idem, but rather on opposite sides in this regard.

Senator David Norris: Could the Minister explain the rationale behind this dithering?

Deputy Noel Dempsey: It was originally proposed to delete section 43, but we received further legal advice in this regard to what is contained in the section. It is a common provision in legislation establishing State bodies. Its purpose is to ensure no one can seek to claim damages from, inter alia, the authority or a subsidiary of the authority in circumstances where the authority or its subsidiary fails to conform or comply with its statutory functions. In other words, we are ensuring that no one can take a legal action against the authority or its subsidiary body for something it did not do. Basically, there are many people who are willing to take legal action against authorities and their subsidiaries for things they do, or do not do properly. We are not going to offer people the opportunity to take legal action against authorities for things they did not do, as this would serve to further enhance the compensation culture that exists at the moment.
If we remove this provision we shall be opening a can of worms. Given the spirit or intent of Senator Ryan’s proposal, however, it is important to state that there will be no bar on anybody taking an action regarding alleged damage arising from the exercise by the authority, or a subsidiary, of its statutory functions. If somebody does something incorrectly, as a result of which loss or damage is caused, my amendment will ensure people may continue to take action against the authority or subsidiary concerned. We are simply not giving people the right to sue because an authority did not do something.

Senator Paschal Donohoe: Will the Minister clarify two points on this amendment? How common is a clause such as this in legislation setting up an organisation such as the Dublin transport authority? When I read the section, it appeared to that this was a blanket cover to the effect that anybody working for the Dublin transport authority would be immune from prosecution for services he or she was not providing. This seemed to be a very strong indemnity to be offering any employee of the Dublin transport authority.
Even if I take on board the point the Minister has just made, about the need for an employee of the authority to have such immunity, paragraph (d) also offers this immunity to a person who is providing services to the Authority, that is, somebody who is not an employee of the authority but who is just providing services to it. Is it common for a blanket immunity such as this to be offered to somebody who is not an employee of the organisation?

Senator Brendan Ryan: Although our legal advice is that this blanket approach might lead to a constitutional challenge later, I do not intend to press our amendment but I reserve the right to seek to have it reconsidered on Report Stage.
Senator David Norris: It is rather curious behaviour. It is somewhat like the “I stepped in again, you stepped out again” approach. It appears in the Bill, step 1. It is deleted, step 2, and then it is back in, step 3. That does not suggest a very clear and logical approach. I am not fully convinced about the Minister’s action. Is it the case that the Minister does not now propose to delete the section?

Deputy Noel Dempsey: I do not propose to delete it.

Senator David Norris: The Minister is right, particularly since we were talking earlier about safety. If somebody is injured because of a dereliction on the part of a transport authority, particularly if Senator Donohoe has his way and it is running railway trains, buses, boats, canal barges, etc., then the public should have the right to sue. The right to restore something that was proposed to be deleted suggest some degree of dithering but that is a very human quality. Since the Minister has got it right now, we shall absolve him.

Senator John Ellis: We need to be careful about paragraph (d), which refers to “a person providing services to the Authority”. That could very well be construed as a subcontractor to the authority who was negligent should not be exempt from being sued. In the event, it is the authority that will be sued, not the subcontractor if there is negligence, and there should be some way of getting around that, because a loophole exists. It means that if I am contracting to the DTA, I do not have to give tuppence about insurance or anything else, because the authority is the first port of call, and I am exempt. It is the DTA that gets sued.

Senator David Norris: I withdraw my remarks because I am now completely confused. I have been made dizzy by this sort of thing, and it now appears that the immunity is left intact. I am not sure this is a good idea for the reasons I gave when I thought matters were the other way around. I do not see why a citizen should not have a case for redress if he or she is damaged by the actions of the authority. It seems a wide-ranging immunity is to be provided without very clear reasons from the Minister.

Senator Paschal Donohoe: Senator Ellis and I have raised a question about section 43(d). I am not convinced about the need for such a strong immunity for the authority itself. I have, however, a wider concern about whether such immunity should be extended to a third party working for the authority. Will the Minister give an assurance that such a clause is commonplace in enabling legislation establishing new bodies and it cannot be used to excuse poor service or performance by a contracted party?

Deputy Noel Dempsey: Such a provision is contained in the Roads Acts. The Senators are having some difficulty with this clause. I was accused of dithering about it earlier by Senator Norris but he has changed his position four times since we started. There is a certain amount of confusion, largely because of the amendments. I will examine this again on Report Stage.
The provision states no action or other proceedings shall lie or be maintainable against the authority, or a subsidiary of the authority, if it fails to perform or to comply with its statutory duties. I understand the concerns expressed by Senators. If, for example, a subcontractor does bad work on a Luas line and it causes a crash, there are concerns the subcontractor could be immune from prosecution under this provision. I will clarify this on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 43 agreed to.
SECTION 44.
Acting Chairman (Senator Michael McCarthy): Amendment No. 42 is ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.

Amendment No. 42 not moved.
Senator Paschal Donohoe: I move amendment No. 43:

In page 38, subsection (10), line 24, after “Authority” to insert the following:

“but must in the first instance be open to competitive tender to all public transport operators”.
We have had full discussions about amendments of this kind already. The Dublin transport authority should play a more active role in stimulating competition for new routes and modes of public transport. It is about ensuring taxpayers’ money is well spent and the routes and capacity are in place to deal with the growing population of the greater Dublin area.

Deputy Noel Dempsey: The Senator wants all public transport networks to be open to competitive tender. Section 44(9) allows the authority to exploit commercial opportunities arising from its functions under Part 3. This includes aspects such as public transport infrastructure, public passenger transport services, integration measures, traffic management, research and information. Section 44(10) enables the authority, or a third party on its behalf, to exercise that right.
I want to avoid becoming too prescriptive in this section. It would be impossible to list all commercial opportunities that may arise. Accordingly, the purpose of section 44 is not to be prescriptive but leave the authority the sufficient latitude and flexibility to enable it to act commercially where the opportunity arises. It is not possible to foresee every case in which there may be a need for a competitive tender process. In some commercial opportunities, no need may arise.
The Dublin transport authority will be subject to the necessary procurement legislation where it applies. The section, as it stands, gives greater flexibility and will not preclude competitive tendering. I will, therefore, not accept the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 44 agreed to.
Sections 45 to 48, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 49.
Government amendment No. 44:

In page 41, subsection (2), line 50, to delete ”section 48“ and substitute ”subsection (1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 49, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 50 and 51 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Senator Paschal Donohoe: I move amendment No. 45:

In page 42, before section 52, to insert the following new section:

”52.-(1) The Authority shall issue additional public service contracts where it can be shown by any person or body corporate that-

(a) there is a requirement for such service in the general economic interest; and

(b) a public service operator has the capacity to provide such a service.

(2) The Authority shall ensure there is a facility in the Authority to accept and consider any such proposal under subsection (1).”.
The amendment arises from my concerns over the immense power vested in the authority over Dublin’s transport network. The Bill allows the authority to be both a regulator and provider of transport services. This creates a conflict of interest for the authority which could cause problems.
Under section 52 the authority will have exclusive power to determine what it believes are the needs of Dublin’s commuters and the organisations involved in providing public transport. The amendment seeks to allow another body, either Dublin Bus or a private operator, to express a belief that there is a requirement for the expansion of a service or the provision of an additional service, and to ask the Dublin transport authority to consider this request and publish a view whether it believes this additional service is needed and whether it will provide it. Also, if the authority will not provide it, it should explain why this is the case.
I have tried to make the amendment more reasonable by making clear that the organisation seeking to demonstrate that an additional transport capacity is needed must be able to demonstrate that is in the clear economic interest of the region, as laid out in the early sections of this Bill. We must also ensure the operator has the capacity to provide the service. We do not want frivolous organisations wasting the time of the public and the Dublin transport authority by putting forward recommendations for services they are not able to provide.
The amendment asks the Dublin transport authority to consider the proposals and recommendations from other organisations in the greater Dublin region to dilute in some way the power this organisation will have and allow it to consider competing views. I hope in some cases that these competing views, if met, would be in the interests of commuters in the Dublin region.

Deputy Noel Dempsey: These sections are important, as the Senator has said. Before I address the specific amendment, it is important to put in place the background to this overall chapter. As Senators have said and as they will know from the Bill, the immediate results that will flow from the chapter we are discussing here are that the procurement of all public transport services in the greater Dublin area will be done by the Dublin transport authority, which is important. This will involve the authority entering into public transport service contracts with all prospective transport operators.
In the case of public bus and rail passenger services, contracts will only be entered into where a public service obligation, PSO, is identified by the authority. Contracts will have to comply with EU law and in particular with the new EU Regulation 1370/2007/EC which establishes a new framework for PSO contracts for bus and rail passenger services and comes into effect on 3 December 2009.
This chapter has been the focus of much attention. When I first introduced the Bill to Government, the Attorney General made his views known on this on the basis of what was happening in Europe at the time with the PSO regulation. Given this, we needed to alter the Bill to take the PSO regulation fully into account. Everything that is in this chapter and these sections is very carefully worded to ensure we comply with EU law and the PSO regulation, which, as I said, will come into effect on 3 December 2009.
The specific structure we have adopted with regard to the making of the direct award of contracts with the CIE companies has been prepared with particular reference to the need to migrate from where we are at present to full regulation in 2009. That is the general background. The Bill is very carefully worded in this regard.
With regard to the amendment, Chapter 2 of Part 3 of the Bill establishes a comprehensive framework which will give the authority the power to secure the provision of public passenger transport services through the making of public service transport contracts. Section 48 envisages that the authority may enter into such contracts following open tendering in respect of public bus passenger services, metro services and light rail services. It also provides that public bus and rail services can be secured by means of direct award contracts. However, section 52, which relates specifically to the making of direct award contracts, provides that in the case of public bus passenger services, such contracts will only apply to the continued provision of the services currently being provided by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. Accordingly, the future growth in the market for subvented public bus services can only be pursued by way of open tendering.
The intent of the Senator’s proposed amendment is already addressed in the overall provisions of this chapter of the Bill. I specifically cite the provisions of sections 48 and 52, to which I referred. These have been carefully prepared and drafted to ensure they are fully in line with the provisions of the EU regulation, which, as the Senator appreciates, has direct application in this regard.
The Senator’s amendment includes the words “shall issue additional public service contracts”. This leaves the authority with no discretion as to how it might provide a public transport service. That is a not a route we want to go down because options must be available to the authority. The intent of the Senator’s amendment is addressed already in these sections which fully comply with the EU PSO requirements in place.

Senator Paschal Donohoe: The Minister’s response indicates clearly that this is one of the pivotal sections in the Bill, which I acknowledge. I also take on board his point regarding the language of my amendment. The concern we should all share with regard to the Bill is that we might get a phrase or clause wrong in such a way that creates vulnerability for an organisation in determining future transport policy in Ireland.
I have a particular concern. Let us say a private operator is operating in another European market and wants to become involved in the provision of transport in Ireland. By legally challenging part of this legislation, the operator would remove the ability of the Government to create policy and might try to force the policy direction of this country via legal action.
There are a number of points I would like the Minister to address. First, is he confirming in this clause that the Dublin transport authority will be what I believe is called the competent local authority for the provision of transport within the Dublin region? If so, will the authority which decides on local transport matters outside of the greater Dublin area still be the Department of Transport and the Minister? Is there a conflict between having the competent local authority, the Dublin transport authority, deciding transport policy within the greater Dublin area and the Department of Transport deciding transport policy for the region outside this area? Could this conflict in any way create an opening for legal challenge to this legislation at some point in the future?
Second, if we are confirming that the Dublin transport authority is the competent local authority for transport issues within the greater Dublin area, does this in any way affect the ability of the new organisation to offer direct award contracts to organisations such as Dublin Bus and Iarnród Éireann? As the Minister acknowledged, if we are wrong on any of these points, it will open this legislation to challenge by private companies who might want to influence the way we provide transport in Ireland.

Deputy Noel Dempsey: On the Senator’s specific questions, which are valid, the DTA will be the competent authority for transport in the greater Dublin area. The Department of Transport will continue to be the competent authority outside the greater Dublin area. As stated in a newspaper article on the Bill, the Government is not handing over all policy-making power and will still be responsible for transport policy. The DTA will be acting on behalf of the Minister as a competent authority, not as a competent local authority per se. The Minister is also a competent authority.
Comments were made to the effect that the Minister for Transport is mentioned 183 times in the Bill. I make no apologies for that because I believe, in respect of any organisation we set up, that Ministers should be accountable to the Houses for policy and the implementation thereof. Every Member of the Oireachtas would agree with this. I am, therefore, not handing over all policy-making functions in respect of transport in the greater Dublin area. I will be asking the DTA to execute the policy and any of the decisions it will make will be subject to ministerial approval, as is right. This meets the Senator’s concerns.

Senator Paschal Donohoe: I thank the Minister for his response. He has clarified that within the greater Dublin area, the DTA will be the competent local body while elsewhere it will be the Department of Transport. I am teasing out this point because it is of pivotal importance to this legislation and how the authority will work.
Will the Minister explain the position on routes that do not originate within the greater Dublin area but which are important to the smooth operation of the transport system run by the authority? What will be the deciding body regarding decisions on such routes? Consider, for example, decisions on fares or the frequency of buses on a bus route that begins outside the greater Dublin area. The Minister said the Department of Transport will be responsible for the region outside the greater Dublin area and that the DTA will be responsible for the area within. If the route begins outside the greater Dublin area, will the DTA or the Department be responsible for making decisions on how it will operate?

Deputy Noel Dempsey: To reiterate, we are concerned here with competent authorities. The Department of Transport is a competent authority and the DTA will be part of that authority. That is the position, particularly under EU legislation. On the specific point on publicly funded transport services - provided, for example, by Bus Éireann or Iarnród Éireann - that commence or terminate beyond the greater Dublin area and which would be regarded as being essentially part of public transport services in the greater Dublin area, section 54 provides that the Minister can, by order, designate services for the purpose of the section. He may also designate such services as the subject of exclusive rights subject to the granting of licences under the Road Transport Act 1932 or the subsequent legislative amendments thereto. Section 54(4) states: “The Authority shall enter into direct award contracts, which impose public service obligations, with Bus Éireann or Irish Rail in respect of the public passenger transport services to which this section relates.” The Minister will make the order and the DTA will execute it.

Senator Paschal Donohoe: I thank the Minister for his clarification. I will withdraw my amendment, particularly in light of his points. However, this area is ripe for confusion or exploitation in that the Department of Transport will be the national deciding body on transport policy while the Dublin transport authority will be operating in the greater Dublin area. The Oireachtas and those involved in the provision of transport in the Dublin area will need to monitor this.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 52.
Senator David Norris: I move amendment No. 46:

In page 42, subsection (1), after line 47, to insert the following:

”(d) Any new such public service contract within the greater Dublin area shall be offered first to Dublin Bus and or Bus Eireann.”.
The Minister has more or less addressed this amendment already because he suggested a European directive required the existence of an open, public and competitive regime. While I favour the existing service providers, particularly where there is a social element, I take it he will reiterate that answer, in which case I will have to accept it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 47 not moved.
Senator David Norris: I move amendment No. 48:

In page 43, subsection (4), line 15, to delete “5 years” and substitute “10 years”.
At an earlier stage of our consideration of the Bill the Minister was lyrical on the need for what he described as a “level playing field” in these areas. If one is giving ten years to other providers, it seems that public service providers should be given exactly the same treatment. Perhaps the Minister will explain to me the distinction between them, which I do not understand.

Deputy Noel Dempsey: The new EU regulation on public service obligations creates the framework that dictates how member states can award exclusive rights and pay compensation for public bus and passenger services in respect of which the public service obligations have been imposed. A specific right is provided for in the regulation to allow one to do this. Under the regulation, which will apply from 3 December 2009, and which will come into full effect on 3 December 2019, member states are being encouraged to take gradual measures to comply with its provision. The chapter we are talking about in the Bill provides for the first time in Irish transport law a contracting regime to govern the subvention of public bus and rail passenger services in respect of which public service obligations apply.
Section 52 establishes that the three CIE companies will have exclusive rights to provide the services that are the subject of State financial support at present and for growth in respect of rail services, subject to future legislative change. In the case of bus services, the exclusive right also is subject to the grant of bus route licences to private bus operators under the Road Transport Act 1932. Direct award contracts will be entered into to support the provision of the services that are encapsulated in such exclusive rights.
Section 48 provides that future growth in the market for subvented public services in respect of which the authority has determined that a public service obligation applies will be addressed by way of contracts resulting from an open tendering process. However, section 52 proposes that the initial direct award contracts in respect of bus services provided by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann will be for a period of five years. It also provides for the review of such contracts and for the making of subsequent contracts.
As for the Senator’s point that the initial direct award contracts are limited to a five-year period, this provision, allied to the review provisions and the power to enter into subsequent direct award contracts, ensures the provisions of EU Regulation No. 1370/2007 will be fully complied with within the timeframe envisaged in that regulation. This section and chapter were carefully crafted to ensure the exclusive rights being granted to the CIE companies, as well as the direct award contracts which relate to them, will be fully in line with Ireland’s obligations under the regulations. Accordingly, I ask the Senator to withdraw the proposed amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Senator David Norris: I move amendment No. 49:

In page 43, subsection (5)(a), lines 19 and 20, to delete “unilaterally make amendments to such contract” and substitute the following:

“can amend such direct award in objectively justified cases and in a proportionate manner”.
This is a precautionary amendment because the powers granted to the Minister in this regard are quite serious and swingeing. The section pertains to carrying out a review and so on and there is another related amendment a little further on. My amendment includes a provision that this should be objectively justified and the action should be taken in a proportionate manner. I am sure this is exactly what the Minister would wish. He would not wish to be disproportionate and he would desire such cases to be objectively justified and I propose to include this wording as a form of safety net.

Deputy Noel Dempsey: This chapter relates to the legislative basis for the procurement of bus, rail, metro and light rail public passenger transport services by the Dublin transport authority in the greater Dublin area. As for public bus and rail services, procurement will arise only where a public service obligation is determined and there is a consequent requirement to subvent the operation of such services. The approach adopted in this chapter in respect of the determination of public service obligations again is consistent with the EU public service obligation regulation which provides for the making of a determination that such an obligation is to be applied as a matter for the competent authority. In the case of public bus and rail passenger services in the greater Dublin area, such a role is being given to the authority.
For that reason, as well as the associated responsibility given to it to ensure funding for the delivery of the services in respect of which the public service obligation relates is in compliance with Regulation No. 1370/2007, the authority must be empowered to carry out reviews of the public service contracts at its exclusive discretion. This is encapsulated in section 52(5). Obviously, the authority cannot act unilaterally, inappropriately or disproportionately in cases such as this. It will be obliged to act in a fair manner and as its actions will be subject to judicial review, the companies are fully protected.

Senator David Norris: While the Minister’s response again makes clear that this section is in compliance with the European directive, nothing in my amendment is in conflict with it. Although the Minister has more or less stated this would be the manner in which the authority would act in any case, enabling an authority to act unilaterally in such a way is a strong power. I propose the inclusion of a safeguard of precisely the kind the Minister considers will be the manner in which the authority will act in any case. It is not in conflict with any provisions contained in the European regulations.
I will read the Minister’s further comments with great interest. However, I must apologise to the House as I have a long-standing engagement that I must fulfil and for which I am already late. Consequently, I have asked Senator Donohoe to move the subsequent amendments in my name. While I greatly regret that I will not have an opportunity to be eloquent on the subject of St. Stephen’s Green, I understand the Bill’s Report Stage debate will take place on another day and I may be able to wax eloquent on the subject of the green on that occasion. I again apologise to the Minister and the House. I do not intend any discourtesy and I am grateful to Senator Donohoe for agreeing to technically move my amendments. This does not mean he is ideologically committed to them but he simply is doing me a democratic service.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Senator Paschal Donohoe: I move amendment No. 50:

In page 43, subsection (5)(b), line 23, after “services”to insert the following:

“in objectively justified cases and in a proportionate manner”.

Deputy Noel Dempsey: As was the case with amendment No. 45, the capacity to review direct award contracts must rest with the authority. However, in the case of a review under section 52(5)(b), the authority must engage in a public consultation process provided for in section 52(5)(d). As part of that process, the authority is required to consult the service provider as well as other potential interested parties, including the users of the services, before it makes the amendment. The authority also is required, under section 52(5)(e), to publish a report as to the reasons it promoted the amendments made as a result of a review under section 52(5)(b). This section provides the opportunity for all interested parties to make their views known to the authority and as I consider the approach set out is appropriate in the circumstances, I ask the Senator to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order of Business - 15th May 2008

Order of Business - 15th May 2008

Senator David Norris: I agree with Senator O'Toole about the manner in which the proposed changes in the HSE have been handled. It has been done in a clumsy and unfeeling fashion. There is a human context to the proposed changes with people facing mortgage repayments and so forth and it must be managed sensitively. On the other hand, it is appropriate that we examine whether there is excess fat at managerial level that can be cut out.
Before Christmas I was informed of a case where a woman lobbied for a form of treatment for her child and others who suffer from a particular syndrome. It was agreed upon and two managers were appointed. However, the recruitment embargo in public health then came up, leaving two managers being paid, no medical personnel employed and no delivery of service. It is insane. If this is widespread in the HSE, I would be glad if some surgery were performed.
A Council of Foreign Ministers meeting in several weeks will discuss economic partnership agreements. These operate very significantly to the disadvantage of Third World countries, particularly in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. These countries have been bullied and browbeaten.

Mr. Mandelson in particular has been accused very widely of bullying these people. The Foreign Minister of the Cook Islands accused him of throwing tantrums to force them into a position of accepting a situation that was inimical to the well-being and financial prospects of his country. The Minister for Trade in Samoa said they suffered the indignity of the rudeness of Commissioner Mandelson to all the Pacific island ministers who were present.
They are trying to force the reduction or abolition of tariffs on a scale that is far beyond what is required by the World Trade Organisation. It is sheer economic selfishness and neoliberal economics, and is one of the reasons I have spoken out against the intensification of this policy under the Lisbon treaty. We already have it. If the Government wants to prove to the Irish people that we have a humane streak and we will stand out, as we did in the past-----
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is the Senator calling for a debate?
Senator David Norris: Very clearly, I have something to ask. For example, the west African ministers said they deplored the pressure exerted by the European Commission and the African Union said that the process leading to the conclusion of interim economic partnership agreements did not build on what was negotiated earlier and was a result of pressure being exerted. I want to make three points. First, the Government should clearly and specifically ask for independent evaluations and impact assessments of what has been agreed already because this will impact on education, health, social welfare and infrastructure in these countries. Second, there should be renegotiation of any aspect that is found unsatisfactory and a reduction to the minimum necessary to comply with the WTO. Third, flexibility should be granted to these developing countries. We have already colonised them. The European countries colonised these areas in the 19th century and raped them of their natural resources. Now, we are continuing this process and using the European Union to drive them further back into economic slavery.

Order of Business - 14th May 2008

Order of Business - 14th May 2008
Senator David Norris: I appreciate the Chair's decision to allow me to speak. I congratulate the former Senator, Deputy Mansergh, on being appointed as a Minister of State. The portfolio that has been allocated to him may appear to have been downgraded, but it is up to him to make it clear that is not the case. Perhaps he could do that by coming to this House at an early date to discuss some of the motions on the Order Paper, such as No. 4, which relates to the Abbey Theatre. The redevelopment of the theatre has been held up for a long time by the peculiar selfishness and greed of certain developers and the pusillanimous attitude of the central authorities in not dealing with and confronting the problem. There was a legal issue at stake, but it has apparently been resolved. The possibility that the Abbey Theatre, which is a national cultural institution, could be moved to the north end of O'Connell Street, which everybody agrees is the best place for it, is starting to open up again. The authorities gave up on that prospect too soon. I suggest that the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, should come to the House.
Senator Paul Coghlan: Hear, hear.
Senator David Norris: His appointment as Minister of State with responsibility for the arts is an interesting one. While it may appear that the position has been downgraded, I do not believe that is the case. This responsibility has been given to an active person who has been a senior advisor to many taoisigh and carries a great deal of weight at Government level.
While I share Senator Donohoe's concerns about the effect of certain works on St. Stephen's Green, we should look at the matter in a positive way. We should ask the Minister for Transport to come to the House to discuss this issue. Perhaps we will get an opportunity to do so in the context of the final section of the transport Bill. International practice has shown that it is quite possible to take up mature trees, tub them, maintain them and eventually replace them. We need a commitment that St. Stephen's Green, which is loved by Irish people, will be restored as it is.
I will conclude by speaking about the metro stations. I feel strongly that we are in danger of doing the usual Irish thing of spoiling the ship for a hap'orth of tar. The Dublin Port tunnel has been a considerable success in diverting articulated trucks away from the city centre. What have we done with it? We are not proud of it. We are ashamed of it. We have left it there in a hobbledehoy fashion. As I said in a letter to the newspapers, it looks like a bit of an old hoover that landed from outer space. If we were to spend approximately €150,000 to dress it up properly, we could make a statement about how proud we are of it.
Let us ensure that we will not have horrible, crude, exposed concrete in the metro stations. Let us use artefacts from the National Museum in recessed glass cases, like they do in the Louvre métro station in Paris. For God's sake, let us spend a little bit extra and be proud of our culture and city.

Order of Business - 13th May 2008

Order of Business - 13th May 2008
Senator David Norris: I welcome the fact that the House will be continuing statements on the Lisbon treaty because it is important that people like me, who have what I consider to be an honourable and reasoned position against the treaty, should have an opportunity to speak.
I hope that on this occasion, unlike the last time I spoke on the Bill, some of it may actually be noticed. It is only fair that there should be balance, particularly because we are not going to get it from the Referendum Commission. The Government made damned sure it neutered that body and took away from it the power which it had previously to put both sides of the argument, for and against, before the people. That was removed by this Government since the last referendum.
I believe in being fair, and in being so to the Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen. He was honest. He said he had not read the treaty from cover to cover in detail. What Senator Regan said was a partial truth, a half-truth, that was used in a partisan way.
Senator Dan Boyle: Look who is talking.
Senator David Norris: That does not seem to me to be helpful but if Senator Regan persists in being helpful in this manner to the Taoiseach, I would advise him to sit on the "No" side and be helpful to the people because then they will all vote "No" in this matter.
Although I take this position, it does not mean that I wish to associate myself comfortably with everyone else who takes this position because there are, as there are on the other side, some troubling elements who do not always tell the truth. I was horrified to hear people speaking on this in the context of the Roscommon Hospital situation. To get people to vote against the Lisbon treaty simply on local parochial grounds of self-interest about a hospital is a flagrant and cynical abuse of that vote. I would not welcome such support. I wish to have people who have a reasoned, calm and rational viewpoint and who will raise questions such as the clear commitment of the European Union, enshrined in the Lisbon treaty, to continue and sharpen the process of liberalising the markets, to open up the markets of the poorest and least developed countries on the globe which were raped in the 19th century by the colonising powers and which we are now going to pillage economically at the behest of people such as Mr. Mandelson.
People on the other side of the argument are not telling the truth when they say, as has been said regularly, that in terms of human rights legislation we would not have had the decriminalisation of homosexual behaviour without the European Court of Justice. It had nothing to do with that court, nor to do with the European Union. I ought to know. I was, after all, the litigant. It was the European Court of Human Rights which is a function, not of the European Union, but of the Council of Europe.
I wish that the honourable judge who was on the radio at lunchtime would answer a couple of questions. He said he would do as much. I would like him to let the Irish people know about the European Defence Association, so coyly renamed from the former European Armaments Group. We know that we would be tying ourselves in with countries that are still committed to the manufacture and use of cluster munitions.
I ask the Leader to give Members a debate on Burma. I gather there is to be some kind of an agreed position on the issue. I welcome that and the opportunity for it to go through with some small degree of debate. When this matter was raised previously it was before the disaster of the cyclone. The country has now had that disaster and I wish to send my sympathy, and that of everyone else in the House, I am sure, not just to the Burmese people but also to the Chinese people who have had the catastrophe of the earthquake in central China. I believe we can reasonably draw comparison between the behaviour of the Chinese premier who immediately got involved in this, and the disgusting behaviour of the military junta.
With regard to No. 19, motion 4 on the Order Paper concerning the Abbey Theatre, could we invite the new Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism, Deputy Cullen, to come to the House? It would be an opportunity to impose that issue as a planning matter and get the Abbey Theatre where it should be, on the Carlton site in the middle of O'Connell Street.

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs - 31st January 2008 - Palestinian Development and Humanitarian Aid

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs - 31st January 2008 Palestinian Development and Humanitarian Aid: Discussion with Irish NGOs and Irish Aid. ^
Senator David Norris: I welcome this morning's meeting and the contributions that have been made. I wish to put on the record that I have long supported the right of the state of Israel to exist and challenged the obscenity that is anti-Semitism whether it occurs here, in Europe or the Middle East. I feel I must put this on the record and show my credentials because I am highly critical of the Israeli Government and its policies and the European Union.
Deputy Higgins clearly made his point on the significance of the Palestinian election; we may not like Hamas but, having heard of à la carte Catholicism, this matter has given an example of à la carte democracy. We have refused to recognise the perfectly legitimate and internationally validated election of a legitimate authority, simply because we do not like it. In my book that puts a very peculiar gloss on democracy. I understand Mr. McMahon's difficulties but I find the following statement coy:
Irish Aid has also contributed towards public service salaries in Palestine, including teachers' salaries. This amounted to €1 million last year and was channelled through a temporary mechanism managed by the European Commission.
That was a squalid deal that was let out and the attitude of the European Union was utterly shameful. The international community, particularly the European Union and our Government, has signally failed to vindicate the bare, essential human rights of the Palestinian people. This is why I feel outraged about this situation.
The people in Gaza have had an appalling time and I know this because I have visited the area and know it reasonably well. The conditions there are shocking. I have condemned the rocket attacks emanating from the area but they are the responsibility of maverick mobile units that do not necessarily represent the local population. Members of these units disperse as soon as the rockets are fired and the Israelis then hit back at local civilians, resulting in terror.
There has been a deliberate, callous and continuous strangulation of Gaza. An Israeli Minister said those in Gaza will not die as a result but will only lose some weight and I find this comment shameful. That individual should have been severely chastised for making a joke of the suffering of others. Ireland is complicit in what I believe is a war crime because under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention collective punishment, which this is, is defined as such. The difference is that these mobile units are not an official organ of a Palestinian state; they are rogue elements that are condemned by the international community. My problem with the Israeli response to the situation in Gaza is that military actions and actions by civilian authorities, such as the closing of power stations, are carried out with the political sanction of the Israeli Government and are supported by that state's armed forces. In my book this is a distinction that should be recognised.
The need for action was mentioned and I have been criticised by people who strongly support the state of Israel for making certain recommendations in the past. For example, I suggested that the human rights protocols attached to the external association agreement between Israel and the European Union should be applied. An even milder suggestion is that we should establish a monitoring mechanism; what is the point of having human rights protocols if we ignore war crimes? Can we at least establish a mechanism to monitor the human rights situation in the light of events in Gaza? Is this too much to ask? Are we afraid of knowing what is going on?
The cutting of electricity supply to Gaza does not merely result in people sitting in the dark and missing their favourite television programmes; it results in infants dying in incubators, elderly people having respirators switched off and vaccines perishing because they are not properly refrigerated. It is not a question of discomfort and people losing a bit of weight, it is a question of people dying and we have a responsibility in this matter. It is tragic for the people of Palestine that Gaza has become for them the equivalent of the land of bondage. As Deputy Higgins and others asked, what sort of conditions must exist when half the population of a territory escapes through a breach in a wall?
My distinguished colleague, Deputy Shatter, asked whether the wall has affected suicide bombings. It appears that it has and I welcome every life that is saved. I used to get the bus home next door to the Sbarro pizzeria where an entire family was wiped out by a suicide bombing so I am not on the side of the bombers. However, the same result would have been achieved had the wall been built legally on Israeli territory, rather than being used in a massive illegal land grab. This is where I have problems with the wall. Had it been built legally the Israeli Government would not have been able to incorporate illegal settlements into Israeli territory. This is the answer to Deputy Shatter's question on the issue.
There is also a question of disproportionality. There are remarkable people in Israel of whom I have spoken previously in this committee. Physicians for Human Rights includes the most distinguished doctors in Israel who queue in rain and mud to treat their fellow human beings in these camps. These doctors are mocked by mere squirts of soldiers of 18 years of age. I ask those present today to consider what their feelings would be if confronted by the kinds of incidents recounted by Richard Crowley in his splendid recent book on this situation. He tells of a Palestinian farmer, who was not politically active and whose family had inhabited the area for many generations, who was stopped and arbitrarily refused permission to visit the next village by two people, a Russian and an American. He was a human being in his own land.
I suggest to the Chairman that a group from this committee could visit the area as one did previously.
Chairman: I will come to that matter.
Senator David Norris: As the Chairman may know, I have been involved in two illegally settled occupied villages, Susya and At-Tuwani in south Hebron, through my former partner, Ezra Yitzhak Nawi. The people there are deprived of precisely what we have spoken of - clean water, electricity and basic medical services. A programme has been established to change this. I held a fundraising event and, thanks to the generosity of the Irish people, I am delighted to say €55,000 was raised to help the villages, some of which was channelled through Trócaire. I have received pictures of the wind-based electricity generators and solar panels that are now there and clean water is accessible but I am afraid the Israelis will demolish all this. Deputy Shatter has asked what has happened to these projects and the money involved but this is a question he could legitimately direct at the Israeli Embassy. Many projects have been destroyed and I would like this committee to extend its protection to the villages of Susya and At-Tuwani to ensure basic resources there for ordinary, non-political people are safeguarded. I do not feel this destruction should go without strong criticism from this committee. We should be vigilant of developments in these villages as they are representative of the bigger issue.
It is a tragic situation and I sympathise with both sides; I know the town of Stirot and so on. We must ensure that there is proportionality.

We have absolutely failed to vindicate the human rights of Palestinians at the most basic level. Only through their vindication will we be able to move towards peace for both peoples of that troubled land.