Order of Business - 19th February 2009

Order of Business 19th February 2009

Senator David Norris: I have the highest respect for my colleague, Senator MacSharry, but the present Government has been in power for so long that, accident or not, it has presided over a situation where the four pillars of society have come into disrepute, the church, the law, the banks and politics. Not a single one of them can stand with its head high in this State. That is partly because the Government has been in power for too long and it has become too lax. We have heard about tweaking the pensions Bill, but one thing is certain, the people will tweak the Government at the first opportunity.
As regards the pensions Bill, I would support the Government in taking hard decisions, and so would the people of Ireland, but they will not do it when there is an unsteady hand on the tiller and when there is complete uncertainty and total amateurishness in evidence. Unfortunately - I hate to have to say it - this is what has happened. The pensions reserve Bill has been instanced.
I was in this House before Christmas, at the time of the budget, when the Minister for Finance gave an undertaking that the weakest, the poor, the children, the needy etc. would be preserved. Now early in the new year we have the pensions reserve legislation, under section 17 of which early child care supplement is to be cut by 10% and the entitlement of children is to be terminated six months early. This is an extraordinary abandonment of the weakest people in society.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Does the Senator support the calls for a debate?
Senator David Norris: I support them strongly for the reasons I have set out. An attempt was made to conceal this measure by sticking it into the final, non-procedural section of the Bill.
I want to address the question of the pensions levy. It is astonishing to me that the Government did not seem to know what it was doing. Two Ministers gave two totally different answers to the question of whether the levy will be gross or net of income. One said it will be gross, whereas the other said it will be net. There is a difference between the two.
Senator Alex White: Half a billion euro.
Senator David Norris: Everybody receives a tax break on pensions. The Government set the levy at 3%, 6% and 10% depending on the rates of taxation. The actual rate is therefore 2%, 5% and 6% because the people on the highest salaries receive the largest tax breaks. That is a difference of €215 million.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator can make these points during the debate.
Senator David Norris: These people are obviously asleep at the wheel. Unlike private sector pensions, which are paid directly into a pension fund, public sector pensions were until recently paid from current expenditure. Now that we have the National Pensions Reserve Fund, that is where the money will go. Instead of reducing Government debt, it will top up the emergency fund to get Seán FitzPatrick and the rest out of a hole. That does not gladden my heart.
I ask the Leader to seek comment from the Government on the apparent inability of leading people in the financial sector to tell the truth. We are offered a classic example of this on the front page of The Irish Times of today. A gentleman called Dr. Michael Walsh has resigned, giving as his reason that the institution over which he presided cannot survive without a financial injection from the Government. His board, led by Mr. Michael Fingleton, denies any financial implication. That cannot possibly be true.
Next Monday, Louise O’Keeffe will be persecuted in the Supreme Court for the costs of a case she took, the facts of which are inarguable. She was sexually abused in a church-run school. The church passed the buck to the State, which passed the buck back to the church. She is now being hounded and could lose her home. Even as we let FitzPatrick and the rest of the golden circle, the existence of whom I have no doubt regardless of whether they were in the tent in Galway, off the hook, we persecute an ordinary citizen.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Norris, this case is before the courts.
Senator David Norris: I hope to God she goes to the European Court of Justice and we get a bloody nose.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We cannot discuss that case while it is before the courts.

Adjournment Debate - Eel Fisheries - 18th February 2009

Adjournment Debate - Eel Fisheries - 18th February 2009.
Senator David Norris: I compliment the Minister of State on the gracious manner in which he dealt with the previous Adjournment matter. I hope he will be equally gracious in dealing with the matter I am raising. He is the most appropriate Minister of State to deal with the subject of eel fisheries because he is involved in determining Ireland’s approach to the issue. I have been approached by representatives of the eel sector from the the North Western Regional Fisheries Board, the Northern Regional Fisheries Board, the Eastern Regional Fisheries Board, the Southern Regional Fisheries Board, the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board and the Shannon Eel Fishermen’s Association. They have complained to me about the over-zealous implementation of an EU directive.
Eels are a naturally occurring species in the Irish fish stocks. The River Dodder at Ballsbridge was full of eels when I was young, until one day the Dartry dye works allowed some effluent to flow into the river and caused a massive fish kill. Masses of trout and eels were killed. It was quite astonishing. It was interesting because eels are fairly resistant to pollution. When eels start to die, it is a significant indicator of the strength of a pollutant.
It is worth pointing out that in negotiations during Ireland’s early years of membership of the EU, we gave a massive bonus to the Union by handing our fish stocks to Spanish and Portuguese fishermen, in particular. We are always being told how much we have gained from being in the EU, but people rarely point out how much we have given to the Union. According to some computations, we have given the EU at least as much as we have gained in grants, subsidies and farm payments under the Common Agricultural Policy.
I want to look at this situation. The eel is an interesting fish, although it is hardly like a fish. It is somewhere between a fish and an animal such as a snake. The life cycle of the eel lasts 90 years. Irish eels breed in the Sargasso Sea before their elvers come to the rivers of Ireland.
It is obvious that the Union is trying to protect this resource. Eel fishermen want to protest against this drastic measure. Not only will it destroy their livelihoods, but it will also prove to be ineffective from the perspective of eel stocks. They accept that what is known as “elver recruitment” is experiencing difficulties in Europe. If elvers do not arrive in Europe in sufficient numbers, eel stocks will decline. Eel fishermen accept that action needs to be taken on a Europe-wide basis.
Why, given that the directive issued by the European Union required a reduction of just 40% in the catching of eels, has Ireland decided to eliminate 100% of its eel fisheries? There is an extraordinary contrast between the position being taken here and that being taken North of the Border. The authorities in the North have decided to allow the Lough Neagh eel fisheries to stay open. It is extraordinary that we are penalising people on this side of the Border while people on the other part of the island are not being penalised.
What can eel processing plants do to avoid going out of business? I understand some of them have explored the possibility of importing eels for processing from Europe or China. If they were prepared to do that - I understand it will not happen - it would be absurdly cost-ineffective. If the Government had not introduced a proposal to eliminate the eel industry entirely, the EU would have automatically required it to reduce by 50% the number of eels being caught. The eel fishermen could have lived with that, but instead the Government has decided on a 100% cut.
In the run-up to the taking of this decision, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, where the Minister of State is deployed, quite appropriately established a working group to examine this matter. At the outset, however, it did not provide for any representative of the eel industry to be represented on the group. It was only at a late stage that representatives of the industry were included on the group. The major decisions had already been made at that stage, without any input from those who are professionally involved in eel fishing. That is an extraordinary attitude. In addition, there has been no recent comprehensive survey of eel stocks in Ireland. We are dealing with this in the absence of solid and scientific evidence.
Severe restrictions, including the introduction of a closed season, were imposed on the Irish eel fisheries in 2008. The working group I have mentioned invited submissions from interested parties. Various submissions were made by eel fishermen and their representatives. They were prepared to reduce their fishing levels for 2009 to a point that would satisfy the requirements of the EU, but this proposal was ignored. I understand that attempts to secure meetings with the Minister have been similarly rebuffed. The Minister of State is shaking his head. I will accept what he says. Has he met representatives of the eel industry? If not, will he give the House an undertaking that he is prepared to meet them?
The Irish commercial eel fishing industry comprises just 2% of the total EU eel fishing industry. It is relatively insignificant. The member states that are responsible for the other 98% of the EU industry are reducing catch levels by just 40%. It seems that the entire industry on our section of this little island needs to be destroyed even though it comprises just 2% of the EU industry. In other words, Irish eel fisheries will be closed while other fisheries remain open. Virtually all the regional fisheries boards have passed resolutions opposing the introduction of a total ban.
The only eel fishermen in the EU to be affected in this way will be the Irish eel fishermen. We are discriminating against our own fishing community at a time of economic recession. While the number of jobs that are at stake is not huge, it is significant for the local communities affected. Why has the Government chosen to put people out of work at this time? By closing an indigenous industry, we will cause great hardship to many decent fishermen without achieving any real or scientifically validated increase in eel stocks.
I understand that no package of financial compensation is to be provided. Even if we were to accept this catastrophic decision, the least we would expect is for some degree of compensation to be offered. If people’s livelihoods are to be swept away from them by a directive from on high, the least they should be given is some compensation for their investment in boats, stock and equipment. That is not being done, however.
I ask the Minister of State to revisit this decision and address this situation. Perhaps limited eel fishing could be allowed, in line with the best scientific advice. Alternatively, or in addition, compensation could be provided to people who are being flung out of their jobs, at a difficult economic time, as a result of the over-zealous implementation of an EU directive. The EU requires each member state to close 40% of its eel industry, but we have decided to close 100% of our industry. There is something almost masochistic about this that I do not understand. I look forward with great interest to hearing the Minister of State’s reply.

Deputy Seán Power: I thank Senator Norris for raising this matter. I have discussed it with many people who are involved in the eel industry. I am fully aware of the legitimate concerns of commercial eel fishermen who are affected by the demise of European eel stocks. I met representatives of the eel fishing industry before Christmas, before Ireland submitted its plan to Brussels, and again in recent weeks. I took their concerns into consideration when examining the options presented to me for the future management of Irish eel fisheries. The delegations from the industry have taken a constructive approach, by and large. I have explained the difficult position in which I find myself. A public consultation process was undertaken during the preparation of the national eel management plan to elicit the views of stakeholders in this sector, including eel fishermen.
I wish to outline the background to the draft national eel management plan that Ireland has submitted to the European Commission. Recent scientific research, issued by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, has indicated that the European eel fish stock is so depleted that it is outside safe biological limits. The EU regulation mentioned by Senator Norris represents an attempt to achieve recovery of the stock to a sustainable level. The objective of each eel management plan is to reduce anthropogenic mortalities so as to achieve a target escapement of 40% of the biomass of adult eels in pristine conditions, that is, before the collapse in stocks began.
I am advised that Ireland’s draft eel management plan relies upon the most up to date scientific and management information available. Surveys of eel stocks were undertaken by the Marine Institute throughout the 1960s into the mid-1990s. Eels were also recorded in the mixed stock surveys undertaken by the central and regional fisheries boards. During 2008, the Marine Institute, along with the other agencies, has collated all available eel survey data into a national database which will support assessments of the stock into the future.
To inform decision making in the preparation of the national eel management plan, scientists developed a stock assessment model based on current best available data.
Given the implications of the scientific and management advice, the absolute necessity to conserve remaining stocks and the obligation to contribute to the recovery of stocks in the shortest time possible, the national eel management plan recommended a number of management measures needed to reach the targets set in the EU regulation. These are, first, an immediate cessation of the commercial eel fishery and closure of the market; second, mitigation of the impact of hydropower, including a comprehensive silver eel trap and transport plan; third, ensuring upstream migration of juvenile eel at barriers; and, fourth, the improvement of water quality in eel habitats.
The option of reducing rather than ceasing the commercial fishery in some districts was considered and decided against for a number of reasons. The required traceability scheme would be uneconomical, monitoring and enforcement effort would be disproportionate to the value of the activity and the recovery of the eel stock would take up to three times as long.
Adoption of all of these measures within the eel management plan provides for recovery of stocks to historical levels in the shortest time possible, some 90 years, which is the equivalent of four eel generations. I emphasise that the achievement of the regulation target by Ireland is dependent on equivalent EU-wide action being taken. Anything less would compromise the recovery of Irish stocks.
Under the regulation an evaluation of the eel stock and management measures will be undertaken every three years until 2018 and every six years thereafter. The prospect of reopening the fishery in each river basin district will be examined from 2012. When the last 25 years of poor recruitment is taken into account, however, it is clear that the adult eel stock in Irish waters will continue to decline for at least the next decade. For the foreseeable future, therefore, management of the fishery will focus on conservation.
I must stress that there is no property right attaching to public eel licences and consequently the issue of compensation is not relevant or appropriate, given that the proposed closure of the fishery is being applied for conservation reasons under the Fisheries Acts. While I have no funds at my disposal for a hardship fund for commercial eel fishermen, the Central Fisheries Board is actively investigating alternative opportunities to assist eel fishermen in diversification efforts. Some eel fishermen will also have the opportunity to tender for the trap and transport operations to be managed by the ESB under the plan.
My obligation as Minister, regardless of the EU regulation, is to conserve and protect our depleted stock of eel sufficient to ensure its recovery and to secure ecological biodiversity in our inland fisheries for future generations. I hope I can rely on the support of the Oireachtas in meeting that challenge.
Senator David Norris: I thank the Minister of State for his response, which addressed partially some of the issues but not all of them. I would like to pick up on a number of points. The Minister of State said he is advised the draft eel management plan relies on the most up to date scientific data but he did not say who advised him. I am suspicious of that advice because the figures on which he is relying are from 1960 to the mid-1990s, which means they are between ten and 20 years out of date. What happened in 2008 was that they collated the data. The collation is an intellectual exercise that does not directly relate to the health or otherwise of eel stocks at that historic period and therefore the fact that it happened in 2008 is not impressive. The data were assembled at a much earlier period than that and may well be out of date.
The Minister of State does not take into account the comparative situation in other European countries. Why are we the only country that is destroying the entire industry?
I welcome the mitigation of the impact of hydropower, the escapes and so on. That should be done in any event but the Minister of State’s first point was on the closure of the fisheries. We are unique in Europe in doing that. The Minister said it will be 90 years before the stocks are completely rehabilitated, if every other European country co-operates.
The Minister spoke also about the examination of the stocks from 2012 but the people working in the industry will have moved on. He cannot expect people to sit on their oars for three years before coming back into full employment.
I am disappointed with regard to compensation. I know times are difficult but the action taken by the Minister of State’s Department has destroyed an indigenous industry. The entire workforce has been thrown into unemployment and in those circumstances some degree of compensation for their livelihood, their stocks and their boats should be considered. He should at least suggest he is actively investigating alternative opportunities to assist them in diversification efforts.
My information might be slightly out of date. In my original communication I mentioned they said they had no meeting since 19 January. Perhaps the Minister of State has met with them since. If not, I hope he will meet with them again to provide an opportunity to resolve this difficult and human problem as well as one that is financial.
Deputy Seán Power: The Senator has raised a number of issues and I am happy to respond to them. I could give him the dates of meetings I had with individuals on the matter. In fact, a number of colleagues from both Houses sat in at meetings with me when eel fishermen were brought in to make their case. I have not refused to meet anyone.
Senator David Norris: I accept that.
Deputy Seán Power: I was happy to facilitate any request I got to have a meeting about the eel management plan.
I should mention that a blog has appeared recently, obviously written by people involved in the eel industry, which is despicable. It is a serious attack on civil servants who are doing their best working on behalf of the country. I find the behaviour of the people responsible for that despicable and I hope we can identify them at a later stage.
Senator David Norris: As a computer virgin I can assure the Minister of State I have not even seen it.
Deputy Seán Power: That is okay. On the scientific advice, I would be happy to provide the advice that was given to me to the Senator. I felt with the advice being made available to me I was in no position to make any other decision other than to do what I did.
Senator David Norris: Despite the fact that it looks out of date.
Deputy Seán Power: We are talking about depleted stocks. The action we are taking now might be too late. There is no certainty that we can recover the stock but we are making every effort to do it.
Regarding the instruction from Europe, we had to submit our plan by 31 December and as a minimum countries which failed to do that would have to see a reduction of 50% in their catch, in addition to the plan they were to submit. It has been said to me that we are the only country adopting this approach. I cannot agree with that because I am not aware of the plans of other countries. They have not published them and I have not seen them.
Lough Neagh is a different case. There has been an onus on fishermen there for a number of years where they were taking eel from the Severn and stocking Lough Neagh. That is a different case and there is a different operation there, on which I can give the Senator the detail later.
It is not my intention to upset people. I know people were fishing eel on a commercial basis while others were doing it as a hobby. It is something they enjoyed doing and all of a sudden we are putting an end to that. The only reason we are doing it is to protect the eel so that future generations can enjoy this pastime or commercial activity that others have enjoyed for a number of years. That is the only reason we submitted the plan. I await the response from Europe but I would be negligent had I taken any other decision than the one I have taken.
Senator David Norris: I thank the Minister of State.

Statements on the Middle East - 18th February 2009

Statements on the Middle East - 18th February 2009
Senator David Norris: May I with unparalleled generosity award the last minute to my friend and colleague, Senator Bacik? The Minister of State is most welcome and I thank him for his courtesy in giving me the notes of his speech. I wish to say something about the context of this debate. It is very short and rushed. I am grateful to the Minister of State for being present. He is a person of substance and weight within Government and I hope he will carry back a message to his colleagues.
This debate is instead of the debate for which I asked. That was a debate which was originated by the motion I put to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, which was unanimously passed and which was sent to both the Dáil and the Seanad from the committee. I confirmed that from the ante room some five minutes before this debate occurred. I understand we will be taking that perhaps next week. That is the important motion and we must repass it. I accepted some of the amendments and some of the watering down. There were some elements I did not like in it, but that is the motion which refers to the war crimes and that is absolutely essential. We are strengthening the hands of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in looking for that in the continuing negotiations. I am most grateful to my colleague, Senator Cummins, for putting the text of that on the record of the House. This will not go away, it will be taken again next week.
The Minister of State’s speech, like the curate’s egg, was good in parts. We are trying a balancing act. It is a pity the Minister of State could not have attended the meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs last week to hear the distinguished Israeli historian, Professor Ilan Pappé, say we should avoid this attempt to be even-handed because it does violence to the real situation. We are always trying to balance and say on the one hand, the Israelis, and on the other, Hamas. It is not an equal situation. This is colonisation and the expulsion and attempted extirpation of an indigenous people.
When the Minister of State says he supports the upgrading of the Israeli trade agreements, I wonder have we learnt nothing. How can the Minister of State support that? That is where I part company with him. I know about EuroMed, the external trade association agreement between the European Union and the state of Israel which gives preferential treatment to the export of their goods. Human rights protocols are attached to that which are not even monitored. What is the point of them? It is a blasphemy against the concept of human rights to have them there on paper while at the beginning of his speech the Minister of State makes clear that he believes there is a prima facie case that Israel is involved in war crimes, only then to say he is supportive of upgrading the trade relations, perhaps in return for some political progress. What about human rights? If those protocols mean anything they should be examined now. Had the European Union done so it could have switched that war off in 15 minutes because it imports 75% of Israel’s agricultural produce. If we had threatened that the Israelis would have changed their tone. That is why it is indefensible they should be rewarded in this way.
The Minister of State complimented Egypt. I do not compliment Egypt; I condemn it. I was there and saw what the Egyptians were doing and the shameful way in which they stopped doctors from around the world going in and held them at the Rafah border crossing. They gassed the unfortunate people in those tunnels who brought in some arms but were also bringing in medical supplies, foodstuffs, aid of various kinds and money, the lifeblood which the Israelis were strangling out of them.
I am not anti-Semitic. No one could dare accuse me of being anti-Semitic. I had an apartment there for nearly 30 years. I lived with an Israeli Jew. I know all about it. I love the civilisation. What the Israeli Government is doing there is as much a blasphemy against Judaism and its respect for life as the American regime was a blasphemy against Christianity with Bush daring - presuming - to call himself a Christian in this matter.
We have a long way to go. There were difficulties. I laugh when I hear the Israelis say: “Why did they not use the greenhouses?” What rubbish. Even in the days of Yasser Arafat, when I was in Gaza, I saw the mounds of rotting fruit and vegetables because the Israelis had strangled the area. They will not let one blade of grass be exported. It is cynical hypocrisy for them to ask: “Why did they not use the greenhouses that we gave them?” They left them nothing that was not useless and insupportable. They are using new weapons, DIME munitions. It is unspeakable. I said this was a blitz and that it was like the Warsaw Ghetto. They do not like that but that is what it is. The Minister of State’s German colleagues are protecting the Israelis. I do not think the Palestinians should suffer because of the guilty conscience of the Germans. It is about time we said the Holocaust was a situation of unique horror and as such is the inheritance of all humanity. It is not the private possession of a corrupt Israeli Government to use as a shield to deflect criticism of its own gross abuses of human rights. I salute those within Israel who have had the enormous courage to stand up and the Jewish people who wrote a letter to The Irish Times. They are the people of great courage because it takes guts to criticise one’s own people.
Last autumn the Israelis knew they had to get in before Obama replaced Bush. Of course they knew they could use the situation for electoral purposes but there was a ceasefire involving Hamas, which was the legally elected government. Let us not hear about democracy unless we are able to accept internationally monitored elections. Last October, during the truce, the number of rockets had dropped from 373 to none, then the Israelis went in and murdered three people. That is what happened. I will leave it at that until next week.

Order of Business - 18th February 2009

Order of Business - 18th Februry 2009
Senator David Norris: I sympathise with the Cathaoirleach’s situation with regard to the Order of Business. I made a suggestion yesterday that received widespread support from both sides of the House, namely, that we should have a special rolling debate on the economy. The Leader replied this was something to be taken up with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I asked my representative on that committee several times to take up this matter. Will the Leader inform the House when the Committee on Procedure and Privileges last met? Has it met since Christmas? Has it met since last autumn? How efficient is it? When will it meet to take up this matter? I wish to have a date put on the record of the House so we may know this matter will be dealt with. That is the channel I was told to approach because there was no point proceeding unless the matter is dealt with in that fashion.
We are discussing the banking crisis again and I do not wish to speak for very long about it. It interests me that the regulator was satisfied in this matter by a response from lawyers who were operating in the interests of Anglo Irish Bank. I would have thought that showed a conflict of interest.
Senator Alan Kelly: Hear, hear.
Senator David Norris: It looks now as if the advice given was either wrong or corrupt. I wish to know something about the lawyers in question and their status, about the advice they gave, why they gave it and whether it was good, bad, indifferent, or, indeed, corrupt. We need a real debate on the economy.
Today we hear that Bord Gáis is moving into the provision of electricity. Everybody is delighted because there will be a drop in the charge for electricity. The Leader fought valiantly for this but I do not believe this is necessarily a good idea. In the short or medium term it may be, but why is Bord Gáis doing this? We are told this is competition. What kind of competition is it when the ESB has its hands tied behind its back? When it applies for a reduction it is not allowed have one.
Senator Mary M. White: That is not the case.
Senator David Norris: The gas board goes in instead. We are attacking the fundamentals on which the wellbeing of this State originated, with people such as Lemass and Whitaker and the establishment of the semi-State bodies, Bord na Móna, Bord Gáis, the ESB and so on. We were always told about competition. Senator Leyden is quite right. We privatised Aer Lingus. What happened? Now we do not service our own airlines. I and others warned about this. Eircom was flogged off to Tony O’Reilly who asset-stripped it and took all the benefit out of it.
An Cathaoirleach: Questions to the Leader.
Senator David Norris: He did not invest one penny in it and flogged it off to an Australian pension fund. Let us look at competition. I voted against the groceries order. We were told prices would go down but they went up. All was a matter of competition. Let us not bow down before this shibboleth.
I say to the Leader, with the greatest respect, that he is not Tommy Dando. There is no sunny side of this particular street so he should not give us a recital of all the good things that are happening. Let us wait until they happen and let us help them to happen by debating this.
I propose a change to the Order of Business.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator’s point is made.
Senator David Norris: We are to have statements on the Middle East. That is not what I requested. I asked for the passage of a motion that was passed unanimously a week ago by all members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. It proposed a war crimes investigation into the situation in Gaza.
I will not press this vote if the Leader will be kind enough to give me an assurance that this will not replace that debate. I was informed that the motion has been sent by that committee as a message to both the Dáil and Seanad. There is no reason we should not pass it. I am trying to strengthen the hand of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I shall call a vote unless I get an undertaking from the Leader that we will have a debate about this specific matter, within a week, if possible. It will waste time but the motion was passed by all parties. Fianna Fáil supported it. The Department has no difficulty with it. I accepted amendments to it. I ask for that assurance. Otherwise I regret I shall waste another ten minutes by calling a vote.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris opposes the Order of Business. Is that what he said?
Senator David Norris: No, I beg the Cathaoirleach’s pardon and thank him for his assistance. I suggested that we take instead the motion in my name about the war crimes tribunal in Gaza.
An Cathaoirleach: Is it motion No. 32?
Senator David Norris: Yes, it is No. 32 which is the exact one passed by the committee.
An Cathaoirleach: On a point of clarification, the procedure for submitting motions from committee is that a copy of the motion is sent by the committee to the Leader’s office. It is then printed on the Order Paper in the Leader’s name. This motion was not submitted in that manner but has been included in the Private Members’ motion at Senator Norris’s request.

Private Members Motion - Charities Bill 2007 - 17th February 2009

Private Members Motion - The Charities Bill 2007 - 17th February 2009
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State but I also pay tribute to Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú. There is no question or doubt that he has been a sterling and valuable champion of human rights, and not always in the easiest times. He certainly did put his head above the parapet.
As regards the question of the Government’s adamant refusal to include human rights in this legislation, that is less and less surprising. I do not accuse the Minister of State but there is no question that there are elements within the present Government which are strongly inimical to human rights, or at least they regard them as little royal perks, so to speak, which they might legally deign to dole out to deserving recipients. That is not my understanding of human rights but this view is clearly held within certain sections of Government and the Civil Service, and I absolutely deplore it. I know there are people on the other side of the House who feel the same way.
As for the specific amendment, I have no great difficulty with it, but I want to make one little point. I do not expect the Minister of State to go back to the other House and create a big rí rá agus ruaille buaille. I wish the record could show the wonderful expression on the face of the Cathaoirleach at that point, because he expressed the horror, I believe, that we might all feel. The legislation provides that the name and number of the charitable organisation must be displayed. How visible must they be? I remember some elections ago when the late Deputy Liam Lawlor was around. He was in the same constituency as the late Deputy Brian Lenihan, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister of State will probably know what I am referring to. Vans went around saying, “Vote No. 1 Lawlor” in very big letters and then there was a tiny little thing, similar to a telephone number or a spot, which said “Also Brian Lenihan”. That met the requirements but no one could see it.

An Cathaoirleach: Was that charity?

Senator David Norris: It was charity, yes. That was an excellent intervention by the Cathaoirleach. My God, but there is wit in the Chair tonight. However, I wonder just how visible they should be and people have a right to know just who is collecting. I live on the other side of the river, not too far away. I walk down to the Oireachtas and sometimes there are eight to ten very good registered charities in evidence. On one occasion during the passage of this Bill, there were 15 collectors from the same charity, all in their uniforms, and I could not get past them. That was an ambush, not charity.
My good friend, Senator Buttimer, craved the indulgence of the Chair and got some. I have to raise a cognate matter that is so serious constitutionally that I would like to be given some indulgence in introducing it. My colleague, Senator Bacik, also referred to it during the debate on the Bill and I welcome the fact that the legislation has come back. I am referring to the troubled issue of mass cards because I believe we have walked ourselves into a constitutional mess. I have very distinguished legal opinion on this from a former Attorney General, Mr. John Rogers, SC. The whole idea of the mass cards initiative was to regulate this area. No one wants bogus mass cards sold. That is a given and we know that they are. We know they are manufactured and may never occasion a mass to be said. The card may not be signed by a priest. It could be a bogus priest or whatever. There is, therefore, an issue of control. However, the Bill as passed, with an amendment introduced at the suggestion of two my colleagues in this House, in fact constricts religion in a dangerous manner. It also purports to establish bishops as specific licensing authorities and creates a new serious criminal offence which, in fact, can only operate in a sectarian manner.
The advice I have been given is to the effect that this is completely unconstitutional, apart from anything else, because it is excessive. I want to quote a couple of the relevant cases. As someone who is not a Roman Catholic, I must say the whole thing seems to be absurd anyway because it is clearly simoniacal. It is classic simony, an attempt to sell, and the word “sell” is used in the legislation and in the Minister of State’s speech. One cannot sell things of the spirit because that is a blasphemy. I feel for my Roman Catholic friends who are bereaved, and I have often acquired these mass cards, to use a neutral word, to be told that the offering was €7.50 — a specific rate. From the cash registers to the rest, it is clearly a sale. It is too theological to debate the issues but the signing of the mass card by the priest is clearly a religious practice. The new section 96 purports to limit this by subjecting the sale of mass cards to the consent of a senior cleric, usually a bishop.
These issues have been considered by the very distinguished Mr. Justice Walsh in his 1972 judgment in Quinn’s Supermarket v. Attorney General in which he stated: “Our Constitution reflects a firm conviction that we are religious people.” That conviction has sometimes caused difficulties to me and others but there is no argument about it. He further argued, however:

It appears to me therefore that the primary object and aim of Article 44, and in particular the provisions of s.2 of that Article, was to secure and guarantee freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion subject to public order and morality; and to ensure that the practice of religion and the holding of particular religious beliefs shall not subject the person [this is the important part] so practising religion or holding those beliefs to any disabilities on that account.
He argued in the same judgment that as a result of Supreme Court decisions, legislative intervention into religious practice, which is allowed under certain conditions because freedom of religion is not an absolute right under our Constitution, should be subject to the following test: “Any law which by virtue of the generality of its application would by its effect restrict or prevent the free profession and practice of religion by any person or persons would be invalid having regard to the provisions of the Constitution, unless it contained provisions which saved from such restriction or prevention the practice of religion of the person or persons who would otherwise be so restricted or prevented.”
The question then arises of the application of a test for legislative intervention in the regulation of the practice of religion, in which regard the former Attorney General, Mr. John Rogers, opines:

Section 96 will impose a disability on persons seeking to buy Mass cards for the purpose of professing their religion in that in seeking Mass cards they will not be able to acquire Mass cards other than those made available pursuant to an arrangement with a bishop or provincial of a religious order. It is difficult to see how the imposition of this disability is mandated or required by public order criteria or by the requirements of morality. On the face of it, section 96 seems designed simply to ensure that Mass cards have authentic provenance but it does so by way of an absolute blanket prohibition on the sale of Mass cards which are made available for public sale but which are not so available pursuant to an arrangement with a bishop or provincial of a religious order. There seems not to be a justifiable basis for imposing this disability on the getting of Mass cards; the dictum of Walsh J. that the law “shall not subject the person so practising religion or holding those beliefs to any disabilities on that account” appears to be offended by this absolute bar to access to Mass cards which derive from a source not the subject of an episcopal arrangement.

It may be perceived that in the absence of regulation of the kind contemplated:

—A person might sell a Mass card which was fraudulent, in the sense that it was not signed by a priest, and/or in the sense that the seller would not procure the saying of a Mass for the deceased;

—A person might sell a Mass card to a person who believed that the price which he paid for the card would go for a charitable purpose, in circumstances in which this was not the case.

The proposed legislation goes further than is reasonably required to address these evils, in that it renders a sale unlawful simply because it is unauthorised, the matter of unauthorised sales may well be a matter of concern to the Catholic Church, but does not appear to constitute an issue of public order or morality which would justify limiting religious freedom in the manner contemplated.

The criminalisation of the sale of Mass cards is another aspect of the disproportionate nature of this piece of legislation. The criminalisation of the sale of Mass cards by those outside the categories of recognised persons will involve the State in the adoption in criminal jaw of restrictions in the practice of religion in a manner which is not supported by Article 44.
I am grateful for the Cathaoirleach’s indulgence in allowing me to set out the opinion of a man who held the highest legal office in the State regarding this important constitutional issue. Although I can put aside my reservations on the question of simony, it appears that in addressing a scandalous issue a dangerous situation has developed, albeit unintentionally and with goodwill. It is dreadful to think of old ladies in my area scraping their pennies together to purchase mass cards which are sold by people who have no real spiritual interest and simply want to make money. However, a sledge hammer is being used to crack a nut and it may well be unconstitutional. I do not know what mechanism exists at this stage to test the section but I have been briefed by an old friend with whom I attended school. This man, who is of considerable eminence, forwarded Mr. Rogers’s opinion to me.

Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy John Curran): The motion before the House tonight pertained to a technical amendment. The Bill formerly put an onus on non-charities to display a charitable number, which simply could not be done. The amendment regularises an anomaly that existed in the Bill.
The evening would not have been complete without the intervention of Senator Norris. He raised a point in regard to the size of the print. He is correct that the Bill does not require the print to be so many millimetres.

Senator David Norris: It could require the print to be clearly visible.

Deputy John Curran: The provision states: “in a prominent and clearly legible manner” but it does not specify the size.

Senator David Norris: I beg your pardon.

Deputy John Curran: We are helping the Senator out.

Senator David Norris: I withdraw my protest.

Deputy John Curran: In regard to mass cards, I inherited this legislation when I was promoted last summer and it was one of the first matters to come across my desk. The issue of door-to-door collections and mass cards were cause for considerable concern among the public rather than the charitable sector or vested interests. I do not have a legal background and would not claim the technical expertise necessary to address the issue but the amendment as presented came from the Office of the Attorney General. We have always recognised the challenges involved and the provision was not drafted in isolation. We rely on the Attorney General’s legal advice in bringing forward legislation.
I do not want to rehearse our previous debates on the issues but I thank Senators for their constructive contributions. We have worked to improve this legislation to the greatest extent possible. Senator Buttimer frightened me when he expressed the hope that we will all be here in five years’ time to review the legislation. We do not know who will be here at that stage. Long before the time arrives for the five-year statutory review, we will have substantial work to do in regulating and bringing order to the charities sector while at the same time inspiring the public’s confidence. As all Senators have recognised, this has to be done in a way that avoids putting undue burdens on small and medium-sized charities.
Senator Norris referred to fund-raisers. Some of these issues are not specifically provided for in the Bill but we are working with the sector on codes of practice for fund-raising. I am not merely waiting for the five-year mandatory review, therefore, but will be giving effect to the legislation over the next several years. 7 o’clock
I thank Members for the constructive nature of our debates, even if we have not agreed on everything. Our deliberation on the Bill has for the most part proceeded in the direction that people sought. I acknowledge the cross-party support I have received on most issues. I concur with Senator Buttimer regarding the officials in my Department who worked tirelessly on this legislation, including Terry Dunne and Joe Hammill, who briefed and advised me. To be fair, they made themselves available to explain and clarify issues for Members of the Opposition in this and the other House. thus allowing people to debate the real issue and preventing any misunderstanding or obscurity in that regard. Senator Buttimer is correct that often those who work tirelessly behind the scenes, who are dedicated and professional in their work, are not acknowledged. I am glad Senator Buttimer did so. I take this opportunity to extend my appreciation to them and to thank all Members of the House for their contributions.

Adoption Bill 2009 - Second Stage Debate - 17th February 2009

Adoption Bill 2009 - Second Stage Debate - 17th February 2009
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State to the House. This Bill is overdue and I compliment him on introducing most, although not all, of the measures required of it. Unfortunately, however, substantial gaps remain in the legislation. Astonishingly, legislation to regularise adoption was first introduced in 1952. Adoptions had previously been arranged informally and certain rather unfortunate circumstances arose as a result. Approximately eight amending Acts have since been passed but this is the first time a major step has been taken on the matter.
I welcome that the Minister of State makes clear that the rights of the child are paramount. That is as it should be. I am glad too that he gives a degree of recognition to the rights of fathers. I hope to God that may to some degree cork up John Waters because he is completely obsessional on this issue. I have spoken about it but he seems to think it is the only thing on the face of the planet. A right has been set out in that regard and I am glad fathers have been given a consultative role. While the Bill probably does not go far enough, at least it moves in the right direction.
In regard to the very difficult situation in which the mother cannot or will not identify the father, genetic information is increasingly important in terms of disease control, advance warning and questions about the subsequent marriage of children. I am grateful, therefore, that measures have been introduced in this regard.
Two principal gaps exist in the Bill, the first of which is the complete absence of post-adoption counselling. This has been recommended by all the bodies consulted about the legislation and I wonder if the omission is simply due to an absence of cash. I am aware that we are facing a grim situation but this represents the future, and I ask the Minister of State to reconsider this issue.
The second gap comprises the missed opportunity in regard to same sex recognition. Last week, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties gave a valuable briefing on this subject which was attended by Members of the Minister of State’s party. I imagine he is the kind of man who would have attended were he not in office. A Bill has been proposed on same sex recognition but the one issue it signally fails to address is adoption, even in regard to a gay person’s own children. Some people in this House have produced ludicrous waffle about the family as if they are unaware that in certain circumstances the family is toxic to children. I am not going to rehearse the arguments made by these people, who we know well enough. Even today, a slightly batty article was published in The Irish Times by a priest who suggested that the family is so dreadful that everyone should become a priest. He argued that the family is awful and leads to alcoholism, abuse and separation. The article is actually quite funny if it is read in a certain way.
It emerged in the briefing by the ICCL that the British Government used the opportunity of reforms to that country’s adoption legislation to introduce full adoption for gay parents in advance of domestic partnership legislation. We often follow the example set by the British Government but it is a pity that we have not done so in the context of this Bill. I am aware the issue is a political hot potato but the backwoods people can certainly be faced down. Is it not idiotic that one gay man or woman can adopt whereas a gay couple cannot be regarded as a family? If the adoptive parent dies, the child has no right to inherit from the non-guardian parent. That is legal nonsense and it represents a missed opportunity. These two lacunae vitiate the Bill. The legislation is lacking, although that does not mean it does not make improvements.
I presume the issue of inter-country adoptions has been raised previously. Of the approximately 4,500 adoptions which have been carried out since 1991, between 30% and 40% have involved non-Hague Convention countries. That issue is not adequately addressed in the Bill for various reasons. Russia would fall outside the Bill’s remit because although it has established bilateral arrangements with other countries, we have no such arrangements. I remind Members of the work done by Adi Roche and the way in which the Chernobyl children have gone to the hearts of Irish people. If Irish people want to adopt and cherish these children, for God’s sake let us not block them. Obstacles arose on the other side when children were unable to obtain visas to come to Ireland because of bureaucratic problems in Russia. I want to know the Minister of State’s plans regarding Russia. Ethiopia is a huge mess but recent analysis indicates that its adoption law is compatible with our system. However, we have not established a bilateral agreement on adoption. Vietnam is one of the most popular countries for adoption and I am aware the Minister of State has stated his intention to establish a new bilateral arrangement. However, the current arrangement expires at the end of April and the exchange of draft agreements has not yet taken place. I ask him to outline to the House the current state of play in that regard.
The Law Reform Commission and all the adoption agencies sought the inclusion in the Bill of a grandfather clause. If a family in Ireland adopts a child from a non-Hague Convention country, a grandfather clause would make it easier to adopt a second child. The reason this is regarded as valuable is because a child from a distant country and alien civilisation might otherwise be denied the opportunity of being raised with a sibling.
The basis for the creation of an adoption court or a fully independent adoption agency appears insufficient. Everything must pass through the Health Service Executive bureaucracy, which is already overwhelmed.
The Children’s Rights Alliance sets out four wishes for the Bill and the Minister of State has provided for all of them except the last, that is, post-adoption counselling. Information is also important. I have been approached by middle aged and elderly people who have no idea of the identity of their parents. Some of them were surrendered to Church of Ireland homes by well meaning people but for social or other reasons, records of their parents were deliberately not kept. That is an awful deprivation for citizens of this country.

Order of Business 17th February 2009

Order of Business - 17th February 2009

Senator David Norris: I have a suggestion to make, which I would like the Cathaoirleach and the leaders of the groups to take on board. Every day the Order of Business is taken up almost entirely with financial matters and that there are continuous interruptions. This is a very hot debate and there are spats between the Chair and individual Members. Last week the House was suspended on a number of occasions and that time was not allowed for. Innocent Members of the House were caught in friendly fire. I suggest that, as we did in the case of the Iraq war, we should have a rolling debate on the economy. Why not have one hour every day dedicated to the matter? We may not take it all.
An Cathaoirleach: It is quite close to that now.
Senator David Norris: That is not my fault.
An Cathaoirleach: I understand that.
Senator David Norris: The Cathaoirleach could get away from it if he restrained himself a little also and showed some flexibility. This is the time that serious issues are raised. Let us deal with that situation and leave one hour aside because we are discussing it every day while other issues that are of considerable importance to the people are neglected.
I suggest also we should examine the role of the Seanad. We are precluded from having anything serious to do with finance and the economy. We are spancelled and neutered and we are not allowed or trusted to consider these matters. Let us consider the collection — I nearly used a word for which I would be ruled out of order — of people who we put in charge of the finances of the country while we as elected Members of the Oireachtas are not allowed to deal with them.
Senator Quinn raised the question of people out on bail committing serious and heinous offences. One of the reasons for this is that the jails are stuffed, partly with women. These are housewives who have not paid their television licences. When I put down an amendment to get rid of this nonsense it was ruled out of order on the grounds that it might create a charge on the Exchequer. That makes a farce of this House. We should be dealing with it. We should reprimand such people as that fellow from Goodbody Stockbrokers who had the unmitigated gall to call for cutbacks in social welfare. That is what I call the FitzPatrick effect — shamelessness. Mr. FitzPatrick called for removal of the medical card from elderly people while he was fiddling the books, cooking the books of one of the largest banks in the country.
Senator Frances Fitzgerald: Hear, hear.
Senator Michael McCarthy: Hear, hear.
Senator Frances Fitzgerald: Absolutely.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has made his point.
Senator David Norris: How dare they? I am fed up listening to corrupt bankers, hedge fund managers, hurlers on the ditch and short sellers of stock pontificating. These are people who never created a single job in their entire bloody lives. Even I created jobs through two companies I managed and I never took a penny out of them. Many others have done likewise. Look at the number of jobs created by Senator Feargal Quinn. Why not let us have a real say in it? Let us talk sense. It is nonsense to suggest those people should be dragged into the committee. It is exactly as Senator Joe O’Toole stated, if I was Mr. Seán FitzPatrick I would be in there unburdening myself. It would be like confession, where one can receive absolution, but one cannot be charged.
An Cathaoirleach: The point is made.
Senator David Norris: Get the buggers into court. That is where we need them.

Statements on the Recapitalisation of Allied Irish Bank and Bank of Ireland - 12th February 2009

Statements on the Recapitalisation of Allied Irish Bank and Bank of Ireland - 12th February 2009
Senator David Norris: The picture painted by Senator Ross is both accurate and grim. We have been confronted with an apocalyptic scenario. Good governance has been absent at senior levels in the banks, regulation has been poor, the banks have engaged in speculation on private accounts and mischarging of accounts and have provided assistance with tax evasion. The record is astonishing. Appalling investments were also made from which the taxpayer had to rescue them. That is the context in which the House debates this issue.
The following statement by the Minister of State is highly significant:

Importantly, statutory codes of practice on business lending and mortgage arrears have been finalised and will be published by the Financial Regulator this week. The codes will be put in place to ensure all banks operating here deal in an honest way with customers and that consumers in particular are treated in a reputable and respectable fashion.
What an innovation. How extraordinary. Does the Minister believe the banking system will survive this? Is this new? Suddenly, starting now, the banks will be honest and treat their customers in a reputable and respectable fashion. This is the measure of the utterly scandalous behaviour at the top of banks.
The €3.5 billion being given to each bank is certainly not enough. Every commentator we hear says it is not enough. When will it be enough? When will we have full disclosure? When will we know the extent of the exposure? From time to time, I listen to the economic analysis from RTE. George Lee is a most balanced, moderate man. One could hear from the tone of his voice last night-----
(Interruptions).
Senator David Norris: Those on the Government side are sniggering. I would not be laughing at this particular situation.
Senator Cecilia Keaveney: It was Senator Norris’s description of George Lee as balanced.
Senator David Norris: He is extremely balanced and he told the truth when those on the Government side concealed it. That is why they want to deride him. I have a lot more reliance on people like George Lee. Listening to the quality of his voice on the recording last night, there was despair, bewilderment and fury in it. That is what the people feel. If the Government does not get into tune with it, it will certainly find it will get its marching orders at the next election, if not before.
The Minister said the terms of the recapitalisation provide that each bank will have the possibility of redeeming up to €1.5 billion of the State’s investment by raising privately sourced core tier 1 capital prior to 31 December 2009. Let us hear the laughter from the Government benches. There is no laughter or sniggering because this is the most idiotic thing I ever heard. Who exactly will invest in these completely discredited institutions? This is on Bloomberg as we speak and is being reported all over the world. Who will invest? This is a completely empty thing.
We must look at this whole circular transaction. Apparently, the money originated in Anglo Irish Bank but from where it got it, I do not know. It then went through Irish Life & Permanent. I read this morning that, apparently, it was divided into two lots. First, €3 billion was put in, which was complete exposure of investors’ money as the guarantee scheme was not in place. Then when the guarantee scheme clicked in, it put in another €4 billion. This is endemic and is a disaster for the way in which we appear in the world.
The Dublin Docklands Authority invested in property speculation with Anglo Irish Bank and it has openly said it has not paid a penny in interest in the past six months. What is happening? Get all the toxic assets and dump them into Anglo Irish Bank. That is what it deserves as it has no reputation left and make it a national property management agency.

Order of Business - 12th February 2009

Order of Business - 12th February 2009
Senator David Norris: Once again the entire Order of Business is consumed with our financial woes, and that is highly appropriate. As far as I can see, it is not being done on the Order of Business anywhere else. That shows the significance of this opportunity to discuss these matters and to be relevant. This is not a drip, drip situation but a splash, splash one. We are being inundated with bad news.
The Minister for Finance is a decent, highly intelligent man who has a huge and unenviable responsibility. Clearly, he is working around the clock and has behaved with considerable dignity under enormous pressure. However, there are questions. I am not mathematically gifted or an accountant but I can see that €7 billion was passed covertly between two banking institutions to mask a problem and deceive the shareholders. That was at a time when that investment, if one wants to call it that, was not covered because the guarantee scheme had not come into place.
We were told the Minister did not read fully the brief, which is unusual, especially for a barrister. It is was left to his officials who passed it to the Financial Regulator. There is a broken reed if ever there was one. Passing it to that busted flush would not guarantee any confidence but, in any case, they did so and the Minister was not told.
We were told this was a routine matter and that issues were raised with the regulator almost daily but not issues such as €7 billion. Senator Rónán Mullen appeared to represent this as insignificant. It is only insignificant in the sense that it is off the radar as far as most people are concerned. I cannot imagine what €7 billion is.
Due diligence-----

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Do you have a question for the Leader?

Senator David Norris: Yes, can we have this debate and raise these specific points either in the debate or with the Minister?
Due diligence is being performed after the investment is being made. Talk about buying a pig in a poke. That is almost looking around to see if there is a poke with a pig in it in which we can invest. I do not have great confidence.
If I was to choose a Minister for Finance at this stage from the talent pool in the Dáil, it would unhesitatingly be Deputy Richard Bruton because he has addressed the situation honestly. He has told it as it is, looked at the stark facts and has come up with a solution.
One thing I find really sickening is that we have been told this was in light of the facts known at that time. Why can we not get all the facts out in the open? The banks should be told in an uncompromising fashion that it is cards on the table time.
Yesterday, we managed to pass a motion unanimously at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs supporting the Government in its initiatives to establish an investigation into possible war crimes during the Gaza offensive. Will the Leader arrange even a half hour debate to pass this motion? We do not even need a Minister present. I understand the motion will also be tabled in the Dáil.

Private Members Motion on Child Poverty - 11th February 2009

Private Members Motion on Child Poverty - 11th February 2009
Senator David Norris: I have just come from a long meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs which did some constructive and positive work and passed unanimously an agreed statement on Gaza. In circumstances such as these, I always begin my contribution by saying I will probably not need eight minutes and then find eight minutes is not enough. On this occasion, I probably have more time than is necessary.
I heard the end of the contribution made by my good friend, Senator Ormonde. I agree with much of what has been said by Senators on the Government side and understand the constrictions of their position. The Senator spoke passionately about remedial teachers. While she may not be able to vote in certain ways, she has an influence through her party’s parliamentary committee meetings.
One aspect of child poverty is the impoverishment of children through the removal of the kind of educational supports which are necessary. This country always had such an extraordinary reputation. If one goes back to the 19th century and the hedge schools, people were prepared to sit in the ditch. The hedge schools gave a damned good education in the classics to untutored, deprived people from an impoverished background. I am proud of that. If we could do it then, surely we ought to be able to do it now in terms of removing the limitations announced this morning on the most disadvantaged children, children with mental handicap or whatever the current phrase is. I am sorry if that is politically incorrect but old people like me use these phrases. I urge decent people on the other side of the House not to be misled by an apparently confrontation tone, which always happens on Wednesday evenings, but to go back, informed by this debate, and put as much pressure as possible on the Government.
As I was involved in committees, I am not sure how much has been put on the record. We probably all received briefings from various groups. What impresses me about the briefing from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the End Poverty Coalition, in particular, is that it chimes so exactly with my experience as a practising politician. Last week, without divulging the identity of the person, I put on the record the gist of a communication I received from an admirable young man living in provincial Ireland. He had worked for a construction company for a number of years and had saved, scrimped and managed so that he could acquire his own company. He got his own company but was blasted by the economic downturn. Calamitously, he had other personal debts so he is in an extremely difficult position. The most heartbreaking thing of all was that he had to go to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul at Christmas so that his children would have some kind of Christmas. Perhaps some of my colleagues have put some of these stories on the record.
The Society of St. Vincent de Paul gave examples which are probably from a variety of sources and combined together. One of the saddest was the story about the single mother whose husband died just before Christmas. She experienced devastating grief right in the middle of the holiday season. She had no money and the funeral expenses etc. overwhelmed her. She had no spare cash and yet she had small children. Her 17 year old son begged her, out of pride, not to go to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul but she did. She had to do so and overcome not only her pride but her son’s. There is also a poverty in terms of psychological diminishment.
Poverty is not only a financial matter but it is also a grievous state of mind where things can get really out of kilter. We spoke the other evening about suicide. People can be driven to suicide by financial pressure. I would say to them it is not worth it; it is only bloody money. They will get out of their difficulties. I congratulate the Money Advice and Budgeting Service which does fantastic work. I hope it never catches the Government’s eye and gets abolished.
In 2003 the Government gave a commitment to reduce poverty to 2% by 2007 and, where possible, to eliminate poverty altogether. I do not believe it is possible to eliminate poverty because it is a human phenomena. It can occur not only through accident or economic turbulence outside the individual’s control but because of a person’s personality. Some people just cannot manage money. Some people are manic depressive, they are wonderful people but they go off on a skite and spend every penny they have and reach the limit on their credit cards. I do not believe we will ever eliminate child or adult poverty.
If one looks at the figures which lie behind this laudable aim, child poverty was estimated at 6.5% in 2001 but the latest figures for 2007 show it at 7.4%. It went up by over 1% so instead of a decrease, there has been an increase. Some 76,000 children live in poverty and a further 205,000 live in households at risk of poverty. That perilous condition of being at risk of poverty, where one must be penurious about everything, including school books, trips, clothes and keeping up with the other children, is also a fairly crushing kind of poverty. Children also go to school hungry.
Poverty and deprivation also have an impact on the further development of children. The Labour Party motion lists these various things, including the number of children living in poverty and the commitment to eliminate child poverty, so at least I am on target. It also mentions the necessity to develop a clear strategy on child poverty, which does not seem to exist. There does not seem to be a clear and coherent policy.
It is very worthwhile looking at the Society of St. Vincent de Paul figures. The society states that living in poverty impacts on every area of a child’s life. There is no escape from poverty just as there was no escape from the Israeli shells for the unfortunate civilians in Palestine. Some 62% of the requests for help received in 2008 by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul Dublin office, which is the largest in the country, came from families with children. As in the example I put on the record, there was a bulge just before Christmas. Christmas creates this kind of social and financial pressure.
Very often the Society of St. Vincent de Paul notices that financial problems are compounded because of the restricted access to social welfare payments and the fact that many people are in enormous debt. It gives a couple of examples which I hope others have not put on the record. It is worth putting a human face on this. This is a real example, although names etc. have been changed. A man called the Society of St. Vincent de Paul before Christmas and said his gas had been cut off. That is a practical thing. If one has no money, what does one do? The ESB then called, because things never happen singularly, to say it was going to cut off the electricity. Thank God for the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. It is a criticism of this State and its policies that the Society of St. Vincent de Paul had to be called in. The State should be there, especially in the light of the things repeated from 1919 in the Mansion House last month.
The Society of St. Vincent de Paul also helps people to manage debt and it helps lone parents. I instanced the case of one woman whose husband died suddenly and tragically. However, there are parents who are parenting on their own all the time. Some 45% of calls for help in the Dublin region in 2008 came from lone parents. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul gave the example of a woman with a 12 year old son struggling to get by. Her most recent electricity and gas bills were approximately €180 but she could not afford to pay them. She called the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for the first time in December 2008 requesting assistance. Her main concern was protecting her son from the situation in which they found themselves. Again, there is this kind of pride of not wishing to accept poverty.
Poverty is seen as demeaning. It is an inheritance from the past. Nobody wants to be detected in poverty by the neighbours. How cruel that can be for children. I know how cruel it can be because I remember how cruel I and all the other little brats were. A little sign of poverty, whether a child turning up in school with a broken strap on a rucksack, a battered thermos flask, a hole in a shoe or a sock, or long hair which obviously should have been cut, marks the child out as different and he or she will be the target of bullying.
We should honour the Labour Party for tabling this important motion, thank our friends in Fianna Fáil for listening and ask them to go back to see if they can strengthen the Government’s position in this area even in a time of financial hardship.

Order of Business - 11th February 2009

Order of Business - 11th February 2009
Senator David Norris: I took part in yesterday’s debate on education, which was good and vigorous. I took certain electoral risks by supporting elements of Government policy but feel betrayed because the Minister clearly knew there would be cuts to special needs provision. The people affected are vulnerable, yet every agency or organ of the State that speaks out on their behalf has been dismantled. There are very few representatives left other than those in this House to speak out on their behalf. This seems to be parallel to what is occurring with the financial institutions in that people in responsible positions have been concealing toxic elements from the public gaze. The Minister is doing this and it is absolutely wrong. I am sorry I did not walk out of the commemoration of the first sitting of the Dáil in 1919 because Members are regurgitating all sorts of ideals but not acting on them. The Minister should come to the House to explain this.
I find what is occurring with the banks quite extraordinary. It seems that it will never stop and there are revelations every day. The continuous drip, as Senator Quinn referred to it, will certainly affect our international reputation. It is quite astonishing. What occurred constitutes deceit and the institutions were concealing things. Banks were collaborating and there is no question or doubt about it. Perhaps the fraud squad should become involved.
What has occurred seems to have been widespread. This morning on the radio I heard a State agency, Dublin Docklands Development Authority, is now refusing to pay interest to a bank that is owned by the taxpayers. What is going on? The same cast of characters continues to appear in regard to this issue. Will the Leader allow the question to be asked whether, at this stage and in these circumstances, it is appropriate to hazard another €7 billion of taxpayers’ money in this financial maelstrom?

An Cathaoirleach: I call the Leader.

Senator David Norris: Will the Leader inform his troops that there will be a briefing session on domestic partnership at 1 p.m. in the audiovisual room, organised by speakers from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties? Perhaps Members would like to attend.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is advertising in the Chamber. I call on the Leader to reply. I apologise for——

Statements on Education Matters - 10th February 2009

Statements on Education Matters - 10th February 2009
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister to the House. He is one of the bright spots in a Government which has become unsure and stumbling in confronting this extremely difficult situation. The Minister has dealt with matters under his aegis with decision and clarity. Not all the decisions are palatable and not all of them recommend themselves. One will have squawks and screeches from all over the place, which is understandable because there is virtue behind some of the complaints, but we are living in an exceptionally difficult situation. I have the greatest respect for my friend and colleague, Senator Buttimer, but as a graduate of Trinity College who lectured there for many years and is strongly supportive of student rights, I feel one cannot dismiss the idea of reintroducing some degree of payment for education, particularly at third level. I say this knowing that it is going to cost me votes. I have said it to student groups, including when I was asked to talk to them in Trinity College. The reason is perfectly simple: in a situation where there are very limited resources, if one wants to achieve social justice those resources are most appropriately directed and targeted at the most vulnerable sections who otherwise would not get to university at all. It will cause some pain to the middle classes but if we want a more equal society, that is what will happen. It will not be popular but it will certainly have to be considered.
I spoke to some of the student representatives but they did not really have a case. First, “free fees” as a statement is rubbish, it is illiterate. There are either fees or education is free — one cannot mix the two up and have free fees. Somebody is paying somewhere, and it is the taxpayer. I am proud to be a part of the Trinity access programme, which brings a small number of people in from disadvantaged areas, although it is not enough.
In a situation where fees are apparently abolished, the most marginalised people find it impossible to get access to university. For example, if they live 30 miles outside Dublin and are going to a city college, they will face the cost of transport, books and accommodation. It rules people out, but the Minister should be ruling people in. Everybody is suspicious because the real problem is the means test. In order to get the support of people like myself who are honourable, honest and will support the Minister, despite the electoral cost, the Minister must indicate his thinking on the means test. It has to be sufficiently high so that people are not caught on a kind of barbed wire of educational disadvantage. The Minister will have my support on fees and I will make that known to my voters and the university circles generally, whatever the cost, because I know that has to happen. We must examine this issue to see if we can make the situation fairer, more just and equitable while still being accessible.

It is very important that we continue to support third level education. The Provost of Trinity College is away, but I was in touch with him by e-mail and he has emphasised the necessity of continuing to promote research. However, he says we should not forget the linkage between research and the teaching commitment, the balance between the sciences and the humanities, the importance that access should be increased, greater activity and entrepreneurship.
I may be parochial in saying this, but I am very proud of all the Dublin universities. I am aware there has been some whispering about mergers and I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on that. I will read what he says later because I have to leave as soon as I make this short speech. The issue of mergers sent a shiver down our spines some time ago and I would like to know what is planned. If mergers are on the agenda, what is in place in that regard? It has been said that the Government feels that four or five universities in Dublin is too many. What is the thinking on this and what kind of rationalisation is involved? I believe all the universities in Dublin are good ones. I am very proud of Dublin City University, that great northside institution. Trinity College hovers on the brink, but never quite made it to the northside. However, it is a wonderful institution and is in the top 200 universities. We can be very proud of its success in the ratings, as we can be of UCD.
The areas of which we can be proud, which is what I think the Provost was getting at, are areas such as innovation, where we get value out of the universities. Universities are not just for chasing ideas, although that is important and must be continued. We must continue programmes in the arts, classics, architecture etc. However, I have just looked at some of the things that have happened in the past year or so through Trinity College. Researchers there developed a test for prediction and risk assessment in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. That is wonderful. The development of this test also involved genetic work. The researchers have developed a new cerebrus spinal fluid that is used as a test for early Alzheimer’s disease and which shows up the production of amyloid plaques on the brain that clog the neural circuits. This is an important advance that will affect people and may lead to the development of a drug to delay or stop onset of the disease. When we consider how the profits from Tysabri reactivated Elan, we can see how this test could lead to creating employment. An important series of discoveries have also been made with regard to coeliac disease, which is a disease where there is an intolerance in the intestine to gluten.
Development of such ideas does not just happen in Trinity College. Researchers at the Waterford Institute of Technology have come up with new ideas in terms of macular degeneration of the retina. I am interested in that because I suffer from it. To a certain extent, macular degeneration is the wearing out of the retina because of age, but a fair amount can be done for it. This is the kind of research that is important.
A psychosis research group in Trinity College has come up with valuable research on schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, what used to be called manic depression. It has done this by analysing the chromosomal structures and detecting particular characteristics in the brain. This is remarkable and will be of value to people who suffer from schizophrenia, a condition from which people all over the world suffer.
At our stage of life we all know people or friends who have died or had treatment for cancer. We have colleagues in this situation. A remarkable advance has been made in the understanding of the mechanism for cell suicide, the mechanism by which cells switch off and stop replicating. This has an implication for cancer patients, because cancer cells go the other way and go mad replicating. This will be very useful research.
I could go on about the removal of various grants in the VEC sector, but the Minister knows all about that. The removal of the book grant is serious because it hits the poorest. I urge the Minister to reconsider that.
I am aware Senator Ross made a passionate plea for Church of Ireland schools. Although I am expected to do the same, I will take a different direction. I would love to see my ethos continue. I go to St. Patrick’s Cathedral every Sunday and I hope people continue to do that, but I do not believe a religious ethos should be passed on through the schools. A religious ethos is for parents to pass on to their children. Schools are for facts.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: They are for education.
Senator David Norris: Yes, for education. I would like to refer to the review by the UN Human Rights Committee which looked at this situation and said the integrated curriculum, or ethos, is discrimination: “The committee notes with concern that the vast majority of Ireland’s primary schools are privately run denominational schools that have adopted a religious integrated curriculum thus depriving many parents and children who so wish to have access to secular primary education.” I have read a long, scholarly legal article about how difficult it is to amend this situation without some kind of constitutional review.
I want to retain my little denomination, and the Roman Catholic Church and Jewish and Islamic religions. It really glorifies life that we have this richness and diversity. Therefore, I am not against denominational education. However, artificially propping up these things through schools, where sometimes the teachers do not believe in anything, disillusions the children. Let them go to church if their parents want them to have religious education and let the churches give it to them. Let the schools off the hook. We have preached this attitude for years to the people of Northern Ireland, where we said separate or segregated education was part of the problem. Why do we not address it here?
I have had correspondence from parents who are secular. I think they are atheists, but I am not certain of that. Those parents want a particular kind of education for their children but cannot get it. They are being forced to send their children to religious schools. They were horrified at Christmas when the children came home, after the parents had been promised by the school they would not receive religious education, singing Christmas carols. While I would not lose much sleep over that, it was deemed offensive by those parents. They found it impossible to get any context which was not religious. This is something we need to look at.
In this context, I want the Minister to take back one message to his colleagues in Cabinet. I want them to look at the situation involving the Ferns and Cloyne reports and ask themselves who are the worst equipped people to be given absolute responsibility over children. There was a systematic structural concealment of considerable levels of severe sexual child abuse and molestation, yet because of the way in which the equality legislation was drafted, all the churches — not singling out the Roman Catholic church — have an exemption from the operation of that legislation. This allows them, theoretically — I do not think they have done it yet or would have the gall to do it — to dismiss a teacher because of his or her sexual orientation, regardless of character. These are the people whose authority has been impugned because of their known, stated, recorded behaviour as in these reports. Despite this, their track record and the number of convictions, these people could say to somebody like me, “You are not fit to be a teacher.”
This was said in my regard, to the Provost, in a letter from a parent approximately 30 years ago. I was giving a series of lectures on European comic fiction in the English tradition. I explained to the class of final year students — grown up people — that it was impossible to understand the way in which the novelist E. M. Forster dealt with character, plot, situation etc. unless one understood his ambiguous attitude towards his own sexuality. A parent wrote to the Provost saying I should be dismissed, not because I was a lousy teacher, but because I was a good teacher and might have an impact as a role model. I would hope so, because there was none for me. I was not changed by my teacher role models. As far as I know, my teachers were all heterosexual, but it did not rub off on me.
I urge the Minister to take this issue to Cabinet. He should ask Cabinet, in light of the objective evidence — not just the evidence of an old ranter like me — whether it is any longer appropriate that the church, which has shown such abandonment of its responsibility to children, should be allowed to be the only institution in the State that is not covered by equality legislation. I urge him to put this question to the Cabinet. Say, “That old nut-case, Norris, in the Seanad, was on about this” and ask it to look at the evidence.