Finance Bill 2009 - Second Stage - 28th May 2009

Finance Bill 2009 - Second Stage - 28th May 2009

Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State. This debate demonstrates the irrelevance of the Seanad to financial matters. We are basically neutered by the Constitution. Only one Member of the House, Senator Twomey, has tabled a handful of recommendations. We are not even allowed to amend the Bill. This reveals our lack of significance with regard to financial and economic matters.
However, the debate at least offers me an opportunity to put certain matters on the record. I am not innately antagonistic to the Government and say “Well done” on successfully floating Government bonds. This was an interesting indicator of some degree of resurgence. NAMA is another interesting development. I understand that Accenture plans to relocate its headquarters from Bermuda to the IFSC. I would insert a caveat, however, because I understand that only ten jobs will be created by the move. That does not suggest significantly increased activity. Once again, it may become another financial black hole.
Senator Hanafin quoted Dickens and the words of Mr. Micawber with great accuracy. However, he was less accurate when he said we were recently near a banking crisis. There is no question that we were actually in the middle of a crisis but I do not think we took the correct response. Internationally, this crisis was precipitated not only by underlying systemic failures and greed but also by Bush’s decision to let Lehman Brothers go to the wall. However, I think we should have let Anglo Irish Bank go down because, in my humble opinion, we do not have an obligation to international investors. Money has not been freed up and we do not know how much will be spent on it. I recently interviewed on my radio show Pádraig Ó Céidigh, the chief executive and owner of Aer Arann. The airline has an annual throughput of €100 million but he cannot even raise €100. That is astonishing.
We must consider the effect of this on people. A recent episode of “Prime Time Investigates” reported on people who are losing their homes to these very institutions. Mr. Jerry Beades, who is a Fianna Fáil builder and a decent man as far as I know, was struggling to continue his work but had to let people go because of the unavailability of credit. It was heart-breaking to see these people being told the news. At least he confronted the situation in a manly fashion and addressed these men face to face.
The principal reason I wished to speak is the social welfare budget. I spotted a gap due to the lack of photographic identification which I gather has been resolved as a result of my intervention. However, I wish to highlight the increase in the tenant contribution. This comes on top of an 8% reduction which was kept very quiet. What about older people and single men who are less educated and vulnerable? They received letters from the Department of Social and Family Affairs which they were advised to show their landlords. That is astonishing impertinence.
I have received a letter from a well-educated professional man who is temporarily out of work. In January, after negotiations and without waving the Department’s letter, his landlord decently agreed to reduce his rent by 15%. However, when he had to apply for rent allowance in March the community welfare officer was totally unhelpful. The budget contained a decrease in the rent allowance which effected an increase in the weekly contribution from €18 to €24. This might appear marginal but is significant to a person in receipt of €204 per week. To my correspondent’s considerable shock, a further decrease in the allowance of 8% was imposed. This was unexpected and never went through. The letter my correspondent received from the Department reminded him of a “Prime Time” programme on people living in substandard rented accommodation, the majority of whom were isolated and ageing men. He asked what stability, surety or peace can be afforded to the most vulnerable in our society if the Government can without notice or approval reduce social welfare payments.
I salute Senator Hanafin and strongly support him in his efforts to reinstate the Christmas bonus. I refer to my good friend and north Dubliner, the Minister of State, Deputy Haughey, whose father I remember well a as a man of varied qualities, some good and others not entirely so. He will be remembered forever as the man who introduced free travel for elderly people. Throughout his career he looked after those vulnerable people and I ask the Minister of State, as his father’s son, to tell the Government not only is reinstating the Christmas bonus the right thing to do, it would also be good for Fianna Fáil.

Order of Business - 28th May 2009

Order of Business - 28th May 2009

Senator David Norris: I refer again to a matter I raised yesterday, that is, the atrocious sectarian murder in Coleraine. A loyalist group has re-routed its march, and that is very welcome. Speaking as a southern Protestant from a Unionist background, I ask the group to cancel the march completely because it is inappropriate for music to be played and people to march when a man is lying dead as a result of his religion.
Returning to the issue we discussed yesterday and about which Senator Harris has spoken so passionately, namely, the report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, the Leader gave an undertaking, on a number of occasions, that he would go to the Department and get a reading on the motion I again propose be taken today which concerns exemptions from the operation of equality legislation. I do this in light of the fact the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy John Moloney, yesterday gave an undertaking to the House that he would examine the issue. It is appropriate that we use this House to examine the issue, especially in light of the comments made this morning on RTE radio by Her Excellency, the President of Ireland, Mary McAleese, who said she knew about the situation. She said the report did not surprise her because she knew about the culture and ethic in the church at that time, which was of dominating authoritarianism.
If we all knew about it and the Government knew, how could the authorities surrender children to these authorities and place such a culture and ethic above the law? I am not anti-Catholic. I simply seek for all churches to be placed at a level of equality with the rest of the institutions. That cannot be seen as sectarian. It is fair.

Adjournment Debate - Communications Masts- 27th May 2009

Adjournment Debate on Communications Masts - 27th May 2009.
Senator David Norris: This is turning into a bit of a Laois love-in and I am quite happy to participate in such an event. I welcome the Minister of State, who has been in and out of the Chamber very busily and very positively all day. I hope he will be able to be positive about this matter which is rather scientific and technical. It is the concern a number of people in Leixlip have about low-frequency microwave radiation emanating from masts used to broadcast mobile telephone signals and in particular a specific form of this that has been acquired by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for the Garda Síochána. There is a very significant mast attached to the Garda station in Leixlip which is within 500 m of a series of schools that contain 2,000 students.
There does not seem to have been any real research done and people are interested in a base level of research to understand what kind of impact such masts have. The fact that such radiation is unseen does not mean there is not a physical reality. The Minister of State may or may not have the experience I have had. Indeed, I just had it once more.
I have a small transistor radio, a little pocket wireless, on which I listen to the news. As I travel along the corridors of Leinster House it is frequently interrupted by various kinds of buzzing, whirring, whizzing, cheeping and so on. It can go off the air altogether. That indicates to me that various kinds of radiation are passing through the ether and also obviously passing through my body. Luckily, I have survived to the age of 65 and I may well go on for another little while. However, I am kind of settled in my ways. My skeletal structure is established and my brain, such as it is, is perhaps inured to these things. However, it does concern me that there is a physical presence and there may well be a physical effect. We are nowadays blanketed by wireless radiation.
As people were concerned about the matter, various distinguished eminent scientists were invited to address a local meeting in Leixlip. They included Professor Olle Johansson of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. This is a very prestigious world-ranking science institute. Also in attendance was Dr. Magda Havas who, like Professor Johansson, is an expert on the biological effects of low-frequency electrical and magnetic fields. Dr. Havas was invited by the city of San Francisco to prepare a report on this kind of radiation as a result of which San Francisco dumped the entire project. They at least took it seriously. She has been very strident in her criticism of this particular system that involves WiMax. She describes it as “Wi-Fi on steroids”. That is a fairly highly coloured description from a distinguished international scientist.
Professor Johansson has had some worrying things to say. He has done research on the matter at the Karolinska Institute that examined the impact on children. As a result of his studies he felt there might be an effect, including increased rates of leukaemia and brain cancer. He also stated as a fact — not a speculation — that after only 45 minutes exposure rats obtained retarded learning and mice that had been exposed to the radiation became irreversibly infertile after five generations. I should not perhaps allow myself the following aside. I have to say that would put me on its side because when I consider the vast explosion of population, I think that a little bit of infertility would not be any harm at all in addition to the form of infertility which I enjoy. I do not say I suffer it — I enjoy it.
A test of children showed that after only one minute’s exposure to microwaves from mobile phones, it resulted in changes in brainwaves in the child for up to one hour after the exposure. That does not actually prove that they would get malignancy. However, it shows a detectable physical effect. Malformed calves are another effect that has been claimed. A lady from Clontarf with a mast next door to her house describes having been told to shield her windows from the radiation with tin foil. However, she found there were holes in it and she claims this came from the radiation.
This is not always met with great sympathy, but they are important things to consider. There is a political aspect to this as the Minister of State knows. In that equation it is important to point out that recently the European Parliament voted by 522 votes to 16 in favour of significantly lowering the exposure guidelines based on biology rather than on the technical measures that were presented as a possibility by commercial interests. Over the past two years a number of health agencies have changed their view. In the old days they used to say there was no risk whatever. They now recommend we should observe the precautionary principle. Again it is significant that when one of the agencies with a financial interest in installing this material gave a presentation to Leixlip town councillors, in complete contradiction to their normal pattern of behaviour they held the meeting in private rather than admitting the public. That is of concern.
I am not a scientist. My father was, but I am not. I am not even particularly scientifically gifted or interested. However, I am concerned because I believe there may be concealed effects from this which could be detrimental. I look forward to the Minister of State’s reply.

Deputy John Moloney: I read a comment made by Deputy Joan Burton last week that Ministers of State used to be sent out at night to give replies. I thank God I have a prepared statement to respond to the matter raised by Senator Norris.
I thank the Senator for the opportunity to address this issue. The potential health effects of electromagnetic fields were the subject of an expert group report published by the then Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in March 2007. The report, titled Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, is available on the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government’s website, www.environ.ie.
The expert group report examined a wide range of issues related to the potential health effects of electromagnetic fields. Its findings address many of the health risk questions raised by members of the public in that regard. The views expressed and conclusions drawn in the report were informed by the principal scientific reviews available worldwide on the matter at that time, including World Health Organisation and other expert studies. The recommendations of the expert group were accordingly approved by the Government and responsibility for this policy area was subsequently transferred to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
The expert group concluded there is limited scientific evidence of adverse health effects from electromagnetic fields. It recommended that Ireland continue to adopt and enforce the international limits developed by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection and endorsed by the World Health Organisation and European Commission. In addition, the group recommended that precautionary measures be used, where appropriate, and this recommendation has also been accepted by the Government.
The Department’s current advice to those living in close proximity to mobile telephone base stations, based on the conclusions of the expert group report, is that there is no scientific basis for or evidence of adverse health effects in children or adults as a result of exposure to electromagnetic fields. This applies irrespective of the location of the telephone mast.
As I indicated, all telecommunications operators in Ireland are required to adhere to internationally established limits in regard to exposure of the public to electromagnetic emissions from their masts. These are applied under the terms of their licences from the Commission for Communications Regulation, ComReg. The limits are set by the International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, a body of independent scientists who have expertise in researching the possible adverse health effects of exposure to non-ionising radiation. The Commission has published a set of guidelines on limiting human exposure to electromagnetic fields, which are freely available from its website.
In recent years, ComReg has conducted measurement surveys to verify compliance with these limits by its licensees. The detailed measurement results from 600 sites have been published on its website. All measurements have so far shown total compliance with the international limits.
My colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, will forward to Senator Norris a number of frequently asked questions and answers on the subject of electromagnetic fields.
With regard to planning issues, Garda stations or other buildings, premises or installations, or other structures or facilities, used for the purposes of or in connection with the operations of the Garda Síochána are exempt from the requirement to obtain planning permission. However, the planning regulations prescribe a public consultation process in the case of such developments. The public must be notified by the State authority concerned regarding the proposed development by means of a notice on the site and given the opportunity, for a period of six weeks, to make submissions or observations to the State authority. The State authority is also required to notify the planning authority in whose area the proposed development would be situated.
When making its decision the State authority must take into consideration any submissions or observations received from the planning authority or any other person or body. The State authority may decide to carry out the proposed development, make variations or modifications to the proposed development or decide not to continue with the proposed development. Anyone concerned about a particular mast on a Garda station should take up his or her concerns directly with the Office of Public Works, the State Authority with responsibility in this case.

Senator David Norris: I thank the Minister of State for his reply, even though he engagingly admits that, like myself, he is not a world ranking scientist. I note the statement refers to the “Department’s current advice to those living in close proximity”. The use of the word “current” is interesting because it suggests there may be developments in this area. Some eminent scientists have expressed more than hesitation in this regard.
I am grateful to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for this reply. It is interesting that a Green Party Minister should be in charge of this area and involved in implementing this programme. One listens with respect to what he has to say.
While I will read the questions and answers the Minister will supply, I am familiar with these types of documents and the Minister does not overestimate my intelligence in choosing to send me such a document. They often take the form of Jimmy asking whether there is a danger to the brain from radiation and Seán replying that there could not possibly be such a danger and asking why people would live next door if that were the case. Notwithstanding my reservations, I will pass on the questions and answers.
It would be more effective if the Minister could be persuaded to engage more directly with the people who have been in touch with me. They have suggested, and this has surprised me, that he seems reluctant to do so and has not answered some of their queries and communications. Perhaps the Minister of State will be kind enough to inform the Minister that I am prepared to read the stuff provided, which will not mean much to me, before shoving it on to the people in question. They will not be impressed by it and would prefer to have some degree of direct engagement.

Deputy John Moloney: I did not come before the House to pretend for a second that I am an expert in this area. I will inform the Minister that the Senator would prefer to have a face-to-face discussion with officials rather than a question and answer document.
As former councillors in County Laois, Senator Phelan and I are familiar with this issue as it is a regular and significant cause of concern. Members of the public often believe we are jumping ahead through the planning guidelines.
I also note the Senator’s point that the statement refers to “current advice”. As someone who worked in Dublin Airport, which is strongly dependent on radio and support services in air traffic control, I am aware that those who lived near the airfield at that time were worried that the electromagnetic field could cause health problems. While I ceased working in Dublin Airport more than 20 years ago, I know this concern persists. Clearly, therefore, it is important that as much clarification as possible should be provided to those seeking information on the issue.

Statements on the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse - 27th May 2009

Statements on the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse - 27th May 2009

Senator David Norris: I grateful to the Minister of State, Deputy Moloney, for staying in the House, because I know he is under considerable pressure. I wanted him to be here because I want to ask him, directly and personally, to take particular action today. I know there is support within his own party, on this side of the House and from many professionals for a motion I raised this morning, and will continue to raise, to re-examine the exemptions granted to all the churches from the operation of equality legislation.
I tabled the motion before this report and in light of the Ferns and Cloyne reports. We had the Laffoy report and now have the Ryan report, and it is getting worse all the time. Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, who is a decent man and a man of integrity, has said there is more to come in the report on what happened in the Dublin archdiocese. In light of what has happened, it is not appropriate to put the very people who have perpetrated criminal acts above the operation of the law. If that is what we are prepared to continue to tolerate in this House, every syllable said here today is nothing other than meaningless, sentimental waffle that patronises and condemns more people to the same kind of thing.
I will put a very immediate and practical example on the record. Last Saturday I attended, with the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Barry Andrews, a man for whom I have the highest respect and is a decent man and a man of integrity, a meeting of a group called BeLonG To who were opening a new office. It is a group of young gay people who campaigned and succeeded in getting a Fianna Fáil Government to authorise the issuing of posters about homophobic bullying in schools. In school, 80% of bullying contains some homophobic element and 80% is never dealt with because the teachers are afraid as a result of this exemption. At that meeting in the centre of Dublin, a 16 year old who is a pupil in a Christian Brothers school told how, during the previous week, the authorities in his school had forced him to take down the posters which would have defended young people against the operation of prejudice and bullying.
We have heard in the House about the ethos that needs to be defended. What is the ethos that needs to be defended? This was not a couple of rotten apples. It was endemic, systematic and took place over a long period, so one can ask what the ethos was. It consisted of the exploitation of children for financial reward, sexual pleasure and sadistic purposes. There is case after case. It has brought Ireland into contempt and that is why we need to do something about it.
What is the ethos? We all read the report. We heard people on the radio. Members of the religious fixed a small boy between the two halves of a window, pinioned him down in the sashes and then anally raped him. A brave, courageous, elected Fianna Fáil politician and former mayor of Clonmel said he was beaten and raped, and the next day had the sacred host placed in his mouth by the people who had done this to him.
We spoke a little in the House about blasphemy. I would like to know, is that not blasphemy? How can such people describe themselves as Christian Brothers? Do not talk to me about our culpability, our shame or our responsibility. I have none of it. I did none of those things. I do not see why I should be required to support these orders financially, when they are trying to weasel out of the situation. I do not see why an old age pensioner should have tax money taken from them. I most certainly do not see why the victims of abuse, because they pay tax, should be forced to finance their own rehabilitation.
It is obscene for the religious orders to dare to suggest they are in a position to offer counselling. How many of the victims have said one of the worst things that happened to them was to have to sit in court, sometimes right beside the people who had abused them? Does the Minister of State really think that someone who has been abused and violated needs to be counselled by agents of the very forces that inflicted this upon them?
When we have a balanced debate, these are the things we need to consider. I ask the Minister of State to go back to his colleagues and ask for the business of the Equality Authority to be re-examined. It is very clear the exemption should be removed. Taxpayers pay the wages in the schools concerned. We must also consider the fact that in some circumstances the largest hospitals in the State are directed and controlled by members of religious orders whose ethos is questionable. For example, I raised a case previously in the House about where life-preserving cancer treatment with experimental drugs was denied by an ethics committee. There was interference by secret groups such as the Order of the Knights of St. Columbanus and Opus Dei. We all know that. 4 o’clock
I seem to have been accused this morning of being anti-Catholic. I do not believe I am because I spoke out about abuse, not just in Catholic schools but in Protestant schools. I painfully placed on the record that I had the experience not of being sexually abused but of being physically abused for a while. I hardly like to say this but a very close family member was violently abused in an upper class Protestant boarding school. While I was in that school the boy next to me, who also had a dysfunctional background and wet the bed, had his nose rubbed in it every single day. He was exposed to the contempt and ridicule of other students until he ran away and was killed by a motor car. There was no inquiry in that case. I have said those things. I do not think I am anti-Catholic. I have been very fair in what I have said but I cannot see how what occurs could be covered by Christianity.
I am a gay man.

Senator Mark Daly: That is no news, David.

Senator David Norris: I do not think that comes as any great surprise to people in this House. I saw one of the “Reeling in the Years” programmes last year that was looking back approximately 25 years. I was then making a dignified but passionate plea to change the criminal law on homosexuality. Sitting behind me was a plump, smug, self-important priest who showered me with contempt and abuse. It was only last year after the events that took place that I realised who he was. Fellow Senators, that was Fr. Seán Fortune, who at that time was raping children in his own diocese of Ferns, but I was the outcast, not that man. If we really wish to be sincere, it is time to do something to stop more children being attacked.
There is a very good article by Justine McCarthy in a Sunday newspaper. She said: “They lied. They stole. They terrorised. They assaulted children. They manacled them.” They sexually assaulted them. There is a catalogue of such actions. Who were “they”? The article continued:

Throughout it all, they — and the whole world — thought they were holy men and women.

Children were made to lie in bed at night with their arms piously crossed over their chests. When they slipped out of this position unconsciously in their sleep, they were woken up and beaten. Holy men came into the dormitories at night, sometimes two at a time, and put their private parts in the children’s hands and in their mouths.
Was that not blasphemy?
On the issue of where the responsibility lies, I deny any responsibility. I spoke out, although it caused me pain as a teenager and adolescent. I continued to speak out. I have spoken out not just about the Roman Catholic authorities but about the whole situation of bullying because it is the principle that motivated me. I defy anyone to say I am anti-Catholic. I want this matter to be addressed. I am horrified by the approach of some people who should now be covered in shame. I refer to people such as Deputy Woods who thinks we should be glad the taxpayer is liable. Why? He says the State is responsible. He was negotiating on behalf of the State and yet he appeared to be more in the pockets of the church. In my opinion the victims were betrayed.
One or two people in the Judiciary, such as Judge McCarthy, was more sensitive to the needs of those people who were brought before him. What was the result? A member of the Government of the day, Mr. Gerry Boland, tried to have him sacked for being too lenient and easy. That is the kind of mentality of the person who wrote a letter to The Irish Times saying most of those people were thugs. A dignified 76 year old woman wrote back who was put into care at the age of two. She got a criminal record for being abandoned when she was two years old. That is appalling.
I appeal to the Minister of State, Deputy Moloney. I know it will be difficult, but he is a man of principle, integrity and courage and if he wants to avoid further damage in that clear area I have outlined, he should not allow what I saw not two years ago nor 20 years ago but last Saturday, when a brave young man stood up and said he was forced by the Christian Brothers to take down posters against homophobic bullying.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy John Moloney): Am I allowed to add a point of information?

Acting Chairman (Senator Denis O’Donovan): Yes.

Deputy John Moloney: I have two points to make. Although I do not have responsibility for the matter under discussion I wish to respond to two points. As Minister of State with responsibility for disability issues, I attended a recent Inclusion Ireland conference. I was asked a question from the floor about State supervision and inspection. At the time I said I could not make a commitment on the issue. In the light of what has emerged in recent days I consider it necessary for me to re-examine the matter and to see whether I can make changes in that regard.
I wish to respond to Senator Norris, this time wearing my hat of Minister of State with responsibility for equality issues. I do not say this by way of pretence just to get through the door. I give him a serious commitment to re-examine the exemption clause, especially in light of what has occurred in recent days. I will not hide behind legal jargon. I intend to test the issue of why the advice was followed. For the sake of the record of the House, I do not for a second believe Senator Norris is anti-Catholic. In fact, I think the opposite.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: On a point of order, may I respond to what the Minister of State said about what was said a few weeks ago?

Acting Chairman: No, with all due respect the Senator cannot do that.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: I raised the matter on the Order of Business this morning. I am pleased to hear what the Minister of State said.

Acting Chairman: I will not allow that now.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: I hope it will be included in the Government recommendations.

Senator David Norris: I very much welcome the Minister of State’s commitment.

Order of Business - 27th May 2009

Order of Business - 27th May 2009

Senator David Norris: I have often received excellent briefings from it and it has taken precisely the type of social position I would like to be embodied in the House’s work. To find CORI callously stalling makes me wonder about the pleasure with which I will receive its briefings in future. All of the elements involved have made it a legal matter. This is what is costing money. I deprecate the self-congratulatory tone of the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern. It was inappropriate.
Regarding my amendment, it is a question of leadership, which I seek from the Leader. Significant elements in his party in the Upper and Lower Houses, including at ministerial level, agree with our position. The matter should be discussed. It is not for civil servants in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to block this House in the exercise of its democratic function. Regarding The Irish Times, I have never seen two pages of its letters page devoted to one subject and that is a significant indicator of the way in which this has become a major issue.
I wish to raise another issue which has been raised by Senator Mary White, that is, the question of the criminal record of some of these people. There was a letter yesterday from a woman who was taken to court at the age of two and, as she said, sentenced to 14 years in one of these institutions. What was that for? According to her, she has a criminal record. She objected strongly, as I do, to a letter which appeared previously from a person who said that all the young people who were put into these institutions were thugs. That is a disgusting remark to make about people who have suffered. 11 o’clock
Regarding Northern Ireland, I signed the letter about journalistic sources. It is a very complex matter and it would be appropriate to have a debate on it because we can see from the newspapers today that we have what the former Dean of St. Patrick’s, Victor Griffin, described as enough religion to make us hate. There is an appalling photograph of a woman with her face beaten into a pulp, whose husband was killed and a pregnant neighbour was attacked. They were attacked with baseball bats by people who apparently think they are Protestant. She was called a “Taig”. It was a mixed marriage. She was Protestant and he was Roman Catholic, and what should it matter? How does that give licence to anybody to beat somebody else into a pulp?


Senator Rónán Mullen: I compliment my colleagues on raising the issue of alcohol. I was present at the NUI Galway alumni event at which the Ard-Stiúrthóir of the GAA spoke and I raised the issue of alcohol advertising in connection with GAA events. Let us be clear, the reason alcoholic drinks companies advertise or connect themselves with sporting organisations and activities is to piggyback on the glamour associated with sport. No one is as sensible of the glamour associated with sport as young people. I am reminded of the courageous point of principle taken by people such as Dr. Mick Loftus, a former president of the GAA. I wish there were others like him who see clearly that alcohol is a serious problem in our society. I call for a specific Seanad debate on alcohol advertising. We could make a great contribution by having that debate soon.
Unlike my colleague, Senator O’Toole, I felt hope when I saw the Christian Brothers’ statement. Time will tell which of us is right. I read into it that there was a preparedness to be generous. Time will tell. I warned yesterday of my fears that a kind of anti-Catholic bigotry would re-emerge under another guise. I have concerns about people raising extraneous issues. For example, my colleague, Senator Norris, does not like section 37 of the Employment Equality Act. I do not see that as protecting the privileges of any church.

Senator David Norris: It does, because it puts them above the law. That is a privilege.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Mullen should be allowed to speak without interruption.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I see it as protecting the rights of different groups in society, in conscience, to an education that reflects their ethos. People who raise such issues at this time, which are extraneous to the needs and concerns of victims, in particular, run the risk of being accused of being cynical or manipulative at a time when we are all struggling to deal with a grim reality.

Senator David Norris: That is a classic smear from you, you smug hypocrite.

An Cathaoirleach: Please. Senator Mullen should be allowed to speak without interruption. We are taking questions to the Leader. Time is running out.

Senator David Norris: I object to my reputation being taken in that way. It is quite disgusting and repellent.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Mullen has the floor and his time is up. We are having questions to the Leader.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I do not intend to take anybody’s reputation but I am asking——

Senator David Norris: You do it all the time in a sly kind of way, but you will not get away with it with me.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris should not interrupt, please.

Senator David Norris: I am not having my reputation sullied.

An Cathaoirleach: Please.

Senator David Norris: If the Cathaoirleach does not protect me I will protect myself.

Senator Rónán Mullen: In the light of that I will reserve any further comment for the substantive debate.

Statements on the National Assets Management Agency - 26th May 2009

Statements on the National Assets Management Agency - 26th May 2009
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, despite the fact it is perfectly clear the action is elsewhere. The fact has already been referred to that there was an important committee meeting earlier today. Although I completely accept that the Minister of State is a highly intelligent and gifted contributor, both as a Senator and as a Minister of State, even though he is almost as irritating as I am——

Senator Feargal Quinn: That would not be possible.

Senator David Norris: ——the real action and decision making will be done by the Minister and advisers such as Dr. Peter Bacon. I was unable to attend this morning’s meeting but I corresponded a little with Dr. Bacon. I asked him when the idea of setting up NAMA first arose. He said the report was submitted to the Minister on 20 March 2009. I mooted the idea of a somewhat similar agency, the national property management agency, on 10 February 2009. One can note the etymological closeness of the two agencies. I returned to the idea on 5 March and 9 April without attracting any great interest. My proposal was considerably more radical than what is currently being set up. I suggested we need to be much more radical. We need to be less obsessed with the market. The Minister of State referred to market forces, as did Professor Ahearne. I will return to that matter.
I am not an economist. Perhaps my ideas are all over the place — I do not know — but in broad outline they might attract some interest and could be considered. My expertise was analysing language. In an article in The Irish Times on 25 April Professor Ahearne referred to the dangers of nationalising banks. A cluster of language occurs in the centre of his article around the word “market”. That word appears six times in two short paragraphs. The Minister has a similar swarm but it is not quite as intense. This obsession with the markets is incorrect, in particular because the Government is never prepared to let the market operate anyway. The Government protects the banks against the operation of the markets. The banks are out of the marketplace as they have made a comprehensive balls of it. They invested in the Irish National Insurance Company. There was the Rusnak affair. The banks overcharged clients and defrauded them. They advised clients to take immoral decisions involving tax evasion. The minute the market clamps down, the banks may clamp down on private householders but as sure as blazes they will not be allowed to clamp down on the market because the minute market forces operate, banks are not allowed go to the wall. The biggest mistake the Yanks made was not to let Lehman Brothers go down. We would not have suffered everything we have suffered if they had let it go, yet they paid for it.
I am interested that there is not a single figure from beginning to end in what the Minister of State said. We simply do not know what we are going to pay. In a previous debate I referred to this as flubber, namely, that volatile, uncontrollable green stuff from a film of the same name. The banks seem to be full of it. I was suggesting that the banks be nationalised. The whole lot of them should be nationalised and put into one bank called “The Bank of Ireland”. That would solve a certain number of problems. We should not worry about the international market response, because it could not possibly be worse. Our banks are valued at virtually nothing. They have had a huge collapse in their value. What are we rescuing? We own most of them anyway. We should collapse them altogether. We can drain out the toxic assets and put them into a bad bank if we want a second bank.
The Minister of State spoke about an asset management agency approach. We should sequester the tangible assets, by which I mean the land, and manage them in the interests of the people of Ireland. People have recently been stating that property speculators will gang up together and take legal advice, but I say “to hell with them”. I do not believe they stand a chance in the courts, although they might waste money. It is always possible to do that. The Constitution may vindicate the rights of private property and we have heard that again with regard to religious orders. Nobody seems to have taken on either of these corrupt institutions, despite the fact that the governing clause deals with the public interest.
Let us send the National Asset Management Agency Bill to the President. We only need two thirds of the Seanad to do so and we can then get it proofed against any challenge by having her refer it to the constitutional court. That will save a lot of money on lawyers’ fees. I do not accept that is a difficulty. The Minister of State talks about an asset management agency, but a toxic debt is not an asset.

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

Senator David Norris: It is nearly up, but not quite.

An Cathaoirleach: It is up.

Senator David Norris: We are not protecting the taxpayer. The Minister of State has given us no indication on the situation regarding the money. There has been a great number of tragedies and repossessions. The chief executive officer of Aer Arann, Pádraig Ó Céidigh, was on my radio programme on Newstalk at the weekend. He has a turnover of €100 million, and after all the money that has already been pumped into the banks to prop them up, he told me he cannot get €100 from them.
I spoke about physical assets such as property and land banks. We should complete the half finished buildings, get the workforce back out there to work on them in a spirit of co-operation and provide homes for people who need them. We should also provide allotments for people who are out of work to grow vegetables and do something positive and constructive with their lives. That is my radical suggestion. We should nationalise the banks, create one bank with a decent reputation and have a national property management agency to manage land banks rather than toxic assets.

Order of Business - 26th May 2009

Order of Business - 26th May 2009

Senator David Norris: I do not agree with the previous speaker. I would say that we must do something practical. I propose an amendment to the Order of Business, that we take today No. 34, motion 8, in my name and some of my Independent colleagues, on the exemption of the churches from the operations of the equality legislation. It is astonishing that the very agency that presided over the rape of children, forcing children to lick excrement off shoes and all the other matters, the full list of which I will not go into, has been placed above the law so that it can do further damage, and it is doing so as we speak.
At the weekend I attended a launch in Dublin, which was also attended by the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children with responsibility for children and youth affairs, Deputy Barry Andrews, who is a very decent man, at which a youth aged 16 told how he was not allowed by the Christian Brothers to put up anti-homophobic bullying posters in the school in which he was a student. Nothing can be done about that because in the face of this cataclysm, we are still allowing the churches exemption from the equality legislation. We are still placing them above the law and if we do nothing about that, everything else we do is utter hypocrisy.
I listened to Sr. Marianne from some order. Even the names of the orders are astonishing — the Sisters of Mercy. How much mercy was there? The names intended to show power and to confuse the ordinary people. I do not know what Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate means but I know it is supposed to mean they are terribly important etc.
I listened in horror to the oleaginous Deputy Woods excusing the disgraceful agreement that was made and stating the taxpayers will be glad to pay. They will not. Why should they? It should be 50:50 as anything else is appalling. For him then to state it was the British who urged this regime of cruelty, I do not believe there is room in this Oireachtas for a person like that.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should conclude.

Senator David Norris: The deaf, the handicapped, the most vulnerable were especially targeted. I say to that nun who stated that the deal is closed, “No it ain’t, Sister.” I can tell the House this. On any deal where they state they will deal with the victims, have they not learned anything? Do they not listen?

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator’s time is up.

Senator David Norris: The very thing that terrifies, as Mr. Michael O’Brien stated on television last night, is to be put in the same room as the agencies that abused them. Do not shame us.

Adjournment Debate - Human Rights Issues - 21st May 2009

Adjournment Debate - Human Rights Issues - 21st May 2009
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Roche. I raise a human rights matter which involves a distinguished parliamentarian and diplomat, Mr. Remzi Kartal, who is a member of the Kurdish National Congress. Mr. Kartal visited the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs with a delegation of Kurdish representatives some years ago. The Minister of State may have met him at that time. I met him and have a photograph of the two of us in Leinster House.
Mr. Kartal was granted political asylum in Belgium in 1994. I am sure the Minister of State will remember the events preceding this because a number of duly elected Kurdish members of parliament were imprisoned by the Turkish Government. It was a most extraordinary invasion of parliamentary rights. In any case, he was elected as a representative of the Democracy Party in Turkey.
Mr. Kartal was arrested in Spain in March of this year. I say as a kind of codicil to that arrest, which was flagrantly illegal, that a colleague of his, Mr. Eyyüp Doru, was also placed under similar restrictions by the Spanish authorities.
Over the past ten years, Mr. Kartal has been working for peaceful reconciliation for the Kurdish people and he has had complete freedom of movement around the states of the European Union. In March of this year, he went to Madrid to take part in a very ancient Kurdish festival called Newroz which is widely celebrated in the area of Turkey where Kurdish people predominate. He was arrested in Spain and is now subject to the possibility of being forcibly extradited to Turkey at the request of the Turkish authorities. This would be illegal under international law and I ask the Minister to protest strongly to the Spanish and Turkish authorities.
Following his arrest, he was taken to prison, held there for a couple of days and then released on condition that he must stay in a named residence, remain in Spain and report twice a week to the police. The same conditions operate in the case of Mr. Eyyüp Doru.
In this case, Turkey has abused the powers of Interpol, a matter which should also be looked at. In addition, the UNHCR has warned that in the eventuality of the return to Turkey of these two gentlemen, they face the strong possibility of torture. That reinforces my view that this possible procedure is completely illegal.
Why has this happened? Part of the reason may well be because there is a personal friendship between Mr. Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, and Mr. Zapatero, the Spanish Prime Minister. Even though I have some respect for both gentlemen, that is not sufficient reason to infringe the law.
Furthermore, the dossier produced in the Spanish court contained material that was used four years ago in Germany when a similar approach was made to the German authorities and, in consequence, Mr. Kartal was arrested, brought to court and tried. The Minister of State should be aware that the German court threw out those accusations stating they were a fabrication without any substance. A German court found that to be the case but now the Spanish are using the same entirely discredited material to facilitate the inhibition of movement and the possible extradition of Mr. Kartal.
Everything is made considerably worse by the fact that the Spanish Cabinet has taken a decision to extradite. On Friday, 8 May, it approved the extradition of both Mr. Kartal and Mr. Doru to Turkey. That is a most disgraceful abuse of the courts and of international diplomacy and is a violation of the fundamental rights of this distinguished former parliamentarian and diplomat. I ask the Minister of State to intervene on his behalf.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Deputy Dick Roche): I thank Senator Norris for raising an issue which in turn raises a number of subsidiary matters. As the Senator is aware, Mr Remzi Kartal, a pro-Kurdish political activist and a former member of the Kurdish Parliament, was arrested in March this year by the Spanish police on foot of an international arrest warrant issued by the Turkish authorities. Mr. Eyyüp Doru was arrested at the same time. The case of both men is being dealt with by the Spanish High Court, the Audiencia Nacional, and the men are on provisional bail, as the Senator acknowledged.
I understand that on 8 May the Spanish Government approved the continuation by the Audiencia Nacional of judicial proceedings in respect of the extradition request by the Turkish authorities for the two men and that the case continues to be under consideration by the Spanish High Court. The situation may not be as final as the Senator indicated in his concerns.
Senator Norris will appreciate that it would be entirely inappropriate for the Government to seek to intervene in, or comment on judicial proceedings under way in another EU member state. We would resent any such intervention or interference with our courts. Therefore, I am in a bind and not in a position to make a statement on these individual cases.
However, I wish to update Senator Norris and the House on efforts under way to promote the Kurdish identity in Turkey and the role the EU is playing in this regard. This is relevant given that Senator Norris has mentioned a warrant that was reviewed and rejected in a German court.
It is estimated that more than half of all Kurds live in Turkey, with 15 million people of Kurdish ethnic origin residing there, mostly in the south east of the country. The Government’s concerns about the human rights situation in Turkey, including the position of people of Kurdish origin, are raised regularly in our contacts with the Turkish Government, including through our embassy in Ankara.
We are also concerned about the security situation in the south east of the country, which was improving gradually until 1999 although it has worsened in more recent years. This follows the resumption of violence by the PKK, a Kurdish separatist organisation founded in 1984 with the goal of forming a separate state of Kurdistan. The PKK appears on the EU list of terrorist organisations.
One of the key elements of the EU’s enlargement negotiations with Turkey is to ensure legitimate anti-terrorism and security measures do not undermine the full respect for human rights——

Senator David Norris: I am sorry but I really must interrupt the Minister of State at this point. I object in the strongest possible manner to this rubbish being placed on the record. Mr. Kartal, whose matter I have raised today, has no association whatever with the PKK. This material could be used to smear him. I suggest that this reply be withdrawn.

Deputy Dick Roche: I shall give Senator Norris——

Senator David Norris: At least the Minister of State must make clear there is no such connection.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I cannot stop the Minister of State from giving his reply. I have no control over the content of his speech.

Deputy Dick Roche: I ask Senator Norris to bear with me. No such implication was made nor could such an inference reasonably or rationally be taken. I was simply referring to the reality that the PKK is such an organisation. Certainly, there is no evidence in my file or in the material I have that might be produced to suggest that this gentleman has specific associations——

Senator David Norris: Therefore it has no relevance to the debate.

Deputy Dick Roche: With respect to the Senator, if he bears with me he will see there is relevance. One of the key issues in respect of the EU enlargement negotiations with Turkey is to ensure legitimate anti-terrorism and security measures are not used to undermine full respect for human rights and the fundamental freedoms as set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. As Senator Norris well knows, this is a specific part of the Copenhagen criteria which the EU applies. Any state looking for membership must meet it and the Turkish authorities know that full well.
In this regard, the number of cases taken against political parties in Turkey is of concern to the EU and to Ireland, and this issue has been raised regularly by the EU in the context of enlargement negotiations with Turkey. The progress report on Turkey prepared by the European Commission issued in November 2008 noted that “the current legal provisions applicable to political parties do not provide political actors with an adequate level of protection from the state’s interference in their freedom of association and freedom of expression”. In addition, the report stated that “the legal provisions on political parties need to be amended and brought into line with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and best practice in EU member states”. Ireland fully supports the recommendations set out by the Commission in this report.
In March 2009, the European Commission for Democracy through Law of the Council of Europe, also known as the Venice Commission, presented an opinion to the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly on the dissolution of political parties in Turkey. This report has been welcomed by the Turkish Government which is undertaking political and legal consultations to adopt its recommendations and bring Turkey fully into line with the European Convention on Human Rights.
We welcome that Turkey has made some progress in recent years in adopting wide-ranging political and legal reforms. Important legislative measures on human rights have been introduced and enacted aimed at strengthening the enforcement of human rights and protecting the cultural rights of all citizens, including those of Kurdish origin.
Reforms have seen the first Kurdish language classes begin in private schools and some programmes in the Kurdish language have been broadcast on state television and radio channels. At the 47th meeting of the EC-Turkey Association Council held in Brussels on 19 May 2009, the EU welcomed the launch of television and radio broadcasting in Kurdish nationwide 24 hours a day. In addition, the EU encourages Turkey to take further measures to enhance cultural rights in practice and lift remaining restrictions, especially in respect of the use of languages other than Turkish in local broadcasting and political life and when accessing public services. The EU also urges Turkey, in line with best practice in member states, to adopt appropriate measures to ensure cultural diversity and promote respect for and protection of minorities in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights and with the principles laid down in the framework convention for the protection of national minorities. We continue to urge the Turkish Government to resolve any of the outstanding issues that relate to minority rights, including those that relate to Kurdish identity, and in co-operation with our EU partners we will closely monitor developments in the region through our embassy in Ankara.
I return to the matter of the Senator’s intervention. Nothing in this reply is in any way intended to pre-judge the position of this man or to suggest that anything other than due process must be applied properly in his case.

Senator David Norris: I thank the Minister of State for his clarification but virtually all of his reply was irrelevant. It was a type of history lesson, accurate enough as far as it went. I am sure the Minister of State knows only too well that dragging the PKK scent across this trail is not at all helpful and is completely wrong-headed. I accept his clarification but obviously it was unnecessary to have included that reference which could have been damaging. I very much regret it.
On to the substance of the matter, this man is being treated illegally. One hopes the Spanish courts will behave in the appropriate manner. I am not suggesting any interference with the Spanish courts but rather a diplomatic move as an indication to the Spanish Government that we are taking an interest in this as a matter of human rights and as a matter of considerable significance. It is astonishing that he should have been arrested on substance that has been shown to be nonsense in the German courts.
I am asking whether the Minister would be prepared to make some discreet, if necessary, diplomatic move with regard to the Spanish authorities, signalling to the ambassador here that there is considerable concern at Government level about this issue. We are entitled to be concerned as co-members of the European Union, since European police machinery has been misused in this affair. Indeed there is nothing whatever to stop a signal being sent to the Turks. They are not involved in a court case. The UNHCR is concerned about the possibility of torture. This man is innocent and the charges were thrown out in the German court. I am asking whether the Minister will make some move towards signalling to both the Spanish and the Turks that this situation is unsatisfactory, is being monitored and will continue to provoke demonstrations such as the one taking place as we speak, which I am going to join outside the Spanish Embassy this afternoon.

Deputy Dick Roche: I thank Senator Norris for that. I will ensure the appropriate embassies as well as the permanent representation to the Council of Europe have copies of the transcripts and are aware of the concerns.

Property Services (Regulation) Bill 2009 - Second Stage Debate - 21st May 2009

Property Services (Regulations) Bill 2009 - Second Stage Debate - 21st May 2009

Senator David Norris: With the permission of the House, I should like to share time with Senator Ross who has a particular interest in this matter.
I had not intended to speak on this Bill, but rather to leave it to my betters to deal with, people such as Senators O'Toole and Ross who have a long track record in pursuing this issue. However, I was briefed this morning, which was pretty late, by people representing the Institute of Chartered Surveyors and I wanted to put some matters before the Minister for State. I am not necessarily agreeing with them. In fact I do not agree as regards some issues, but I should like to get the viewpoint of the Minister of State.
They are querying whether a distinction should not be made between residential and commercial property as they believe this distinction is not made clear in the Bill. They wonder why in section 2, which deals with "advised market value" the Bill purports to give a new definition of this and in their opinion ignores a document known as the Red Book, which apparently is accepted internationally, on the Stock Exchange and so on. It gives an internationally accepted definition of the term, "market value". I am interested in finding out the reason the Minister of State chose to ignore what is, I am told, presumably on reliable grounds, an internationally accepted definition.
They argue that assessing the value of property is not and cannot be an exact science. There has to be a margin of error. I believe the Minister of State recognises that, but again I am very interested to hear his response. The final point relates to section 55, the idea that the vendor should be required to sell at the advised value, and I rather agree with them in that regard. I know what the Minister of State is getting at, namely, gazumping.

That is effectively dealt with in other sections of the Bill. At an auction, the value of a property is the limit to which two people are prepared to bid. This measure may erode the market. That is a question mark and there may be a reason for it.
Section 56 refers to the advised market value. We see the phrase advised market value, AMV, in the newspapers every day. These are often patently absurdly low. They are cited as a fishing expedition to get people involved. They gull people and their use is not good practice. I am on the side of the Minister in this instance.
Section 57 makes it illegal for a vendor to authorise a person to make false bids at an auction in order to inflate the bidding. We all know this goes on. It is not fair. It acts against the interest of the purchaser. It is not enough to say caveat emptor. There is responsibility on the part of an auctioneer to act in the interest of the purchaser. I approve of that and it is a pity if chartered surveyors do not agree with it.
Section 58 prohibits a licensee from providing a financial service. This would be a conflict of interest. One cannot be a servant of two masters. I completely agree with this measure.
Of course, a record of all offers must be kept. Otherwise, how is the vendor to know he or she is being properly treated. With regard to complaints investigations and sanctions, the authority must make sure a complaint is made in good faith.
I regret the Minister has not tackled property management companies for, for example, blocks of flats. I know of a number of cases where this is unscrupulously done. All the conflicts of interest adumbrated in the Bill reside in that group. Because developers do not have to vest a management company in the residents until an entire development is sold, they deliberately hold on to one flat. They then secure the services of their own families or friends at exorbitant rents and soak the unfortunate tenants for the cost. That has to be stopped.
The Bill is very interesting. The Minister of State has done good work. However, I have some questions about it and I ask him to come back with the regulation of property management companies.

Order of Business - 21st May 2009

Order of Business - 21st May 2009
Senator David Norris: The most chilling and damning words on the front page of The Irish Times this morning are "systematic" and "endemic". They tell the whole story. This was known to many people in authority. In the Church, responsibility goes right to Rome, where a report detailing the systematic and endemic sexual abuse of children gathered dust for 60 years.
I respectfully disagree with Senator Harris, to an extent. The Protestant section of this society is not exempt, except by whitewash. I attended an up-market Protestant boarding school where sadism was rampant and someone very close to me had his life destroyed by this sadism.
It is extraordinary that the Protestant churches should be so completely excluded. I feel great compassion for the victims but I also feel compassion for the many decent, good and self-sacrificing members of the clergy who are now tarred with the same brush, in the same way that we as politicians are tarred.
What about the judges? Children, trembling, terrified and clearly physically injured, routinely turned up in front of the judges of the State and not one of them ever asked a question. The judges are as guilty as anyone else in this State and we are guilty too.
I remember what Senator O'Toole was talking about and the debates about the Stay Safe programme. Those people were in this House as well. I listened to them talking about protecting the family against children. It was disgusting and repellant and it is disgusting, repellant and obscene that still we have a situation where the churches, the very people that are indicted in this report, are exempt from the operation of the equality law. They are not equal with the rest of us and they are placed above the law. How can anyone tolerate that the people who visited this on the innocent children of the country are exempt from equality law?
The bullying and psychological torture of young people is still going on and is facilitated by us. Christ and Caesar are still hand in glove in this place and we are guilty of it. For that reason I not only support and second Senator O'Toole's amendment, but propose a simple amendment of my own, that we take No. 29, motion 9 and allow ten minutes for it. The motion, in the name of Senator O'Toole and I, simply states: "That Seanad Éireann, in the light of the Ferns Report [and the Cloyne report, the Laffoy report and now today this unspeakable revelation], requests the Government to re-examine the exemption of the churches from the operations of equality legislation." We should do so today in a ten-minute statement and we need not even take a vote but simply pass the motion. We are not condemning anyone or prejudging the issue. We are calling for it to be re-examined. If we do not do so today the House stands in contempt and in dereliction of its duty to the children of Ireland.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business: "That No. 29, motion 9, be taken today." Is the amendment being pressed?

Senator David Norris: On the basis that the Leader has gone a considerable way towards accommodating me and has indicated that if at all possible, he will allow ten minutes at the beginning of proceedings next Wednesday, I will withdraw the amendment. We will be watching for that and I hope it will be possible. Otherwise the Government's inaction will be very badly regarded by the people. There will be other ways of resolving the matter but doing as I propose would be very important and positive.
Order of Business agreed to.

Private Members Debate on Overseas Development Aid - 20th May 2009

Private Members Debate on Overseas Development Aid - 20th May 2009
Senator David Norris: It is absolutely outrageous. The whole thing is a spin. On "Prime Time" on 5 May, in response to a question from Mr. Justin Kilcullen, the Minister of State said we were protecting short-term emergency humanitarian aid because that was where our focus was. We want to save lives, but we are saving lives with our programme in any event. Yet when the researchers contacted the Minister of State's office they were told that the earmarked funding for rapid onset humanitarian emergency programmes, which is exactly what he was talking about, was reduced by 70% from €20 million to €6 million. The office, on being contacted again, responded that what the Minister of State had intended to say was that the reduced amount, in other words the 30% pittance left, would be delivered. That is sheer nonsense.
Now the Minister of State is saying, "although the motion is framed in positive terms". Of course it is as it says nothing, apart from how wonderful we are, but we are not. I do not believe it is right to take historical credit for a situation that has developed over some years, in the present circumstances when we are cutting deeply into this aid. Again, the Minister of State is taking credit for the generosity of the Irish people. The Government is not the Irish people.
Deputy Peter Power: No, I am not. I am complimenting the generosity-----
Senator David Norris: It is on page 4, where he talks about the wonderful generosity of the Irish people. It is not his generosity, I would say. He says he is continuing to work towards the target. He continues to work towards missing it. This is disastrous. He says he accepts that the cuts, which are savage, will have an effect. He does not even have the nerve to acknowledge that it is a negative effect. He talks about going off to huddle with his fellow Ministers in Europe, and we know a number of them are cooking the books, as the Minister of State knows, I am sure, because he is a decent man. They are including things such as debt cancellation as if they were giving money. That is shameful and is something over which I hope the Minister of State, who is a decent man, will raise and rattle their cage in Europe.
Former President Mary Robinson, an old friend of mine and of many people in this House, said that she is concerned because the cuts are proportionately more severe in this than in any other European country. We are told that 25 jobs in this country will be sacrificed from all the aid agencies. Overseas it will be worse. By the end of this year Concern will have cut 500 jobs overseas and its budget is reduced from €26 million to €20 million. Goal will cut nine jobs from its Irish office and its budget is down 29%. Trócaire says it will be forced out of a programme that supported 143,000 in east Africa, who will starve to death. Then there are the children with HIV, where in clinics they are prevented from getting HIV. There is Oxfam, too, and the cholera prevention programme in the Democratic Republic of Congo as well as Amawele in South Africa. We are always boasting about our connections with South Africa and taking credit for the work of people such as Mr. Niall Mellon, yet there is no funding. A number of those projects will close down.
There have been €195 million in cuts, about the cost of a small motorway. The cuts will progress from 0.58% in 2008 to 0.48%. We are going backwards, despite being promised time and again that this would not happen. We are now unlikely to meet the target. Other European countries are shaming us.
Deputy Peter Power: That is not correct. Nobody has gone past us.
Senator David Norris: It is correct. I will dispute that with the Minister of State and we can bandy figures, but these are the cuts. I said the Minister of State had a brass neck, but I do not believe he wrote that stuff. Neither do I believe that he framed the motion. I believe that if he was left on his own he would fight and I hope the strong words he has heard in the Seanad tonight will give him armaments with which to fight, both within Government and with its partners in the European Union, most of which should be thoroughly ashamed.

Order of Business - 20th May 2009

Order of Business - 20th May 2009


Senator David Norris: I second Senator O'Toole's amendment. I support the call by Senators Fitzgerald and O'Toole for a debate on the report on child abuse, particularly in light of motion No. 9 on the Order Paper which refers to the extraordinary exemption of the churches from the operations of the equality legislation. The churches are now placed above the law with regard to equality, which gives them the right to dismiss teachers. This is, in effect, a question of bullying. In 80% of cases of homophobic bullying nothing is done because the teachers are afraid. This is unacceptable. It is obscene that the group that in four successive reports has had its reputation impugned in this area continues to be allowed this opportunity for discrimination.
We know there is no real equality in this country. It is very sinister that today our predictions have come true with regard to the Equality Authority. The new chief executive is, as we suspected, a senior member of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The authority will have no independence and no credibility. I call for a debate on the issue, as proposed in motion No. 21 on the Order Paper.
I wish to refer to the law on blasphemy, an issue that has been raised several times in the House. Today, a senior member of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, Mr. Miklos Haraszti, said that in creating this offence of blasphemy, Ireland is taking a regrettable, backward step, which negates the progress it had made. Nothing was done for ten years and we were quite happy to turn a blind eye to it. That is what we should continue to do. Perhaps the Constitution needs to be revised to deal with this issue.
One of my colleagues raised examples of some absurd instances as justification for an offence of blasphemy. It was suggested somebody might take the host, the most sacred element of Christian worship, and destroy it in public or that somebody might stand outside a synagogue and abuse the Jewish community by saying "Up the holocaust". These are extraordinary, bizarre and ridiculous acts that would, presumably, be committed by somebody who was unbalanced. If not, the law already exists under which the issue can be addressed. These are breaches of public order. This is conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace. We do not need the blasphemy law. It will only be used to restrict freedom of speech and it must be resisted.

Adoption Bill 2009 - Report Stage (Resumed) - 19th May 2009

Adoption Bill 2009 - Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage – 19th May 2009. ^

Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 68:
In page 62, to delete lines 33 to 37 and substitute the following:
"(2) The High Court, in respect of subsection (1)(b), in considering the fact that under the law of the state in which an adoption was effected, the adoption has been set aside, revoked, terminated, annulled or otherwise rendered void, shall review the status of the adoption order under the law of this state. The High Court shall give a direction having regard for the welfare of the child as the first and paramount consideration.".
This amendment seeks to substitute a new subsection (2) to section 92. It relates to the procedure whereby an application may be made to the High Court to correct, amend or make an entry in the register of inter-country adoptions. The substantive change the amendment would introduce is to provide that the High Court, in any such application, would give its direction having regard for the welfare of the child as the first and paramount consideration.
This point was raised previously by Senator Fitzgerald in the debate on this Bill. This is the underlying principle on which the whole Bill must be based. We spoke earlier on the Order of Business about the Minister of State's comments to The Irish Times, as published in its edition today, in respect of the agreements with Vietnam in particular and the concern that in conducting an agreement with that jurisdiction, matters had come to his attention which meant he was not happy, I understand, in signing off on the agreement. Certainly, those were matters relating very closely to the welfare of children.
It is a matter of great concern to all of us to read these reports which I believe go beyond what was said in the House last week. We were sensitive in our approach in the House last week because we believed there were things the Minister of State could not say about difficulties in the agreement with Vietnam. What we read in The Irish Times today made it clear to us that particular issues had been raised in respect of fees that apparently are being paid to adoption agencies in Vietnam. There are issues around consent, potentially the valid consents by birth parents in Vietnam.
I see the Minister of State shaking his head so I would like to get some clarification from him for the Seanad record as to the exact nature of the concerns about the agreement with Vietnam. We have all read heart-rending e-mails from prospective adopters in Ireland who, understandably, are deeply distressed about the circumstances in which they find themselves. In many cases they were in the final stages of having an adoption carried out and indeed understood they had children waiting for them in Vietnam, yet now are no longer in a position to proceed. This is very distressing both for them and, very importantly, the children in Vietnam. We need to know the position in respect of the agreement.
The welfare of the child as the first and paramount consideration is what guides us all in this. It has been raised before in this debate, however, that had we had a constitutional amendment on this, it might have meant there would have been no need to have inserted it in every provision. Given that we do not have an amendment to the Constitution which provides for that, it is especially important we insert it, where necessary, into provisions in the Bill and that is what Senator Norris and I have sought to do. At a broader level, when we are looking at the welfare of the child, we need to know the particular issues that have made it difficult to finalise the adoption agreement with Vietnam. The Minister of State is on the record in saying last week in the Seanad that he has trust in the agency in Vietnam with which Irish couples are dealing, namely, the Helping Hands Adoption and Mediation Agency. I believe there is only one agency with which prospective Irish adopters are dealing.
We need some clarity because the report in The Irish Times refers to difficulties in the USA and Sweden and issues raised in those countries. These go to the core of the welfare of children and raise concerns about this and the position of birth parents in Vietnam. We need to know the position for Irish prospective adopters and, perhaps more importantly, the position regarding the welfare of the children in Vietnam about whom we are all concerned.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: I second the amendment. I expect the Minister of State will take the opportunity to put on the record of this House what he told The Irish Times. The report by Carol Coulter is very good and I have no problem with it. However, I have difficulty with the fact that the Minister of State was asked in the House on quite a number of occasions whether there were particular difficulties. The Seanad, I believe, took it in good faith that he was trying to resolve particular difficulties, as I still do. None the less, there are details in The Irish Times article that he did not put before this House when we were discussing this issue. He did not confirm that national oversight in Vietnam was one of his concerns. He did raise the issue of the level of fees paid by parents and where these went. It is said in The Irish Times the Minister of State would like a closer relationship with the Helping Hands Adoption and Mediation Agency. I am concerned prospective parents have read about these issues today, and yet the Seanad did not have the opportunity of having a reasonable and detailed discussion about these three issues because the Minister of State did not outline them as being among the difficulties he was having in concluding the agreement with Vietnam.
Given that we have spent quite a number of days discussing the Adoption Bill in the House, I believe the Minister of State should have outlined those difficulties. We should have had an opportunity to hear his concerns, as should the prospective parents, so that we might have teased out some of these issues and perhaps made some suggestions. At least we should have been told that these were the barriers against the Minister of State concluding the agreement. Everyone involved is very concerned about this and wants what Senators Norris and Bacik have in this amendment, namely, the best interests of the child as the first and paramount consideration. I shall speak in a moment about the fact that we have not had the amendment to the Constitution on the protection of children's rights. If that amendment were in place I believe that in some respects we would be having a very different type of Adoption Bill. Several of the provisions would be different, as the Minister of State has allowed, and I regret that the amendment is not in place prior to our discussion of this Adoption Bill.
I want to point out the type of things parents are saying and I again ask the Minister of State to clarify the situation. Perhaps it was not this Minister of State but rather previous incumbents who were negligent in looking at these agreements. If it has taken so long to get clarity on the Vietnam bilateral agreement, what will happen, for example, to the bilateral agreements with Ethiopia and Russia? Fine Gael gave the Minister of State an opportunity in an amendment, rejected on Committee Stage and which he might re-examine on Committee Stage in the Dáil, to be able to place a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas saying whether it was intended to conclude a particular bilateral agreement, the stage the negotiations were at and highlighting any difficulties. That would have provided an opportunity to bring such matters to the attention of the Houses, alert Departments as to what needed to be done and the timeframe that would have been necessary.
This is all concerned with the best interests of the child, which is a key point in this amendment. A letter in The Irish Times from parents shows the types of questions they are asking:
We have all known for the past five years the agreement would run out on May 1st, 2009. Why was the draft bilateral, promised to the Vietnamese, only sent to them on March 6th 2009? Why was a delegation, and not Mr. Andrews, himself, only sent to Vietnam in the week beginning April 20th 2008, just a week and a half before the deadline? This is outrageous and this issue now needs to be addressed by the Government.
I will not quote the whole letter but it goes on to outline the impact this has had. It may well be since the Minister of State has taken over this brief that he has highlighted this and that the resources of the Department are totally engaged in this respect. I do not doubt for a minute the good intentions of the officials involved and the hard work they put in, but there are serious questions about whether an adequate timeframe was put in place before the deadline had expired to deal with the issues the Minister of State outlined to The Irish Times today and which he did not outline to this House. He took the opportunity to make a statement last week and I ask him to do the same today giving the same detail that was given in The Irish Times article and of which we were not made aware during our detailed discussions in the House.
Can these issues be resolved? The current lack of clarity leaves parents distressed and concerned whether they will be taken out of this limbo. Given what has happened in recent weeks and whatever negotiations are taking place, can we expect more clarity? When will the Minister of State go to Vietnam? How does he plan to deal with this issue?

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I welcome the Minister of State back to the House. This will be our last chance to debate this Bill in the Seanad. It is important, therefore, that the Minister of State come clean on this issue so that couples are updated. I support the amendment but I want to hear how couples will receive information from the Minister of State, given that the Bill will not be discussed in the Seanad after today.
Will a bilateral agreement be made with Vietnam, will it be in place before the summer recess and when will the Minister of State visit that country? Last week, he told me privately that he had some concerns about standards in Vietnam.

Deputy Barry Andrews: I was speaking to the Senator in private.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: In the article in The Irish Times the Minister of State dealt with issues such as national oversight, fees and the Helping Hands agency. I ask the Minister of State to share his observations with the House. Why does he discuss these concerns with the legal affairs editor of The Irish Times and not with legislators? This brings the House into disrepute and puts the Seanad down.
When we have left the House today, how will couples know what is happening? How will the Minister of State communicate the day-by-day progress of the bilateral negotiations? That is what these couples need in the interest of the babies they want to bring into their homes. Couples need this information. Where will it be made available to them? Can we infer from the newspaper article that, because of his concerns, the Minister of State has chosen not to renew the agreement with Vietnam? If so, why did he not tell the House? We are all here in the interest of the child. Why does he put couples through such misery?
I reiterate my questions. After today, how will couples know what is happening? What means will the Minister of State choose to reach them? Will a bilateral agreement be made with Vietnam and will it be in place before the summer recess?

Senator David Norris: I apologise to the House for my lateness. I had a long-standing appointment to meet the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy Martin Cullen, on two very serious issues. Senator Ivana Bacik kindly moved my amendment in my absence and there was a useful and interesting discussion on it.
I hope the Minister of State can make some movement on this issue. The amendment proposes that where an adoption has been rendered void by the state in which it is to take place, the High Court should review the status of the adoption order under the law of this State and not of any other. The High Court should then give a direction implementing the welfare of the child.
Specific arguments regarding the amendment have been made. I would like to look at the wider context in which the amendment is set. A significantly large number of people have invested emotionally in this area, embarked on the process but not actually achieved the adoption. They are, naturally, very anxious. They are at different stages along the road to adoption and they feel very passionately. One understands that. However, we are dealing with the welfare of the child. If I had to choose - and it would be a judgment of Solomon - between the welfare of a child and the emotional needs of a parent, I would have to choose the welfare of the child. It is for that reason we must listen carefully to what the Minister of State has said.
This matter has already been raised with regard to the Minister of State's disclosure of material to The Irish Times. I read the two articles and I remember them reasonably well. I recall they were both written by Carol Coulter. In reading one, I deduced that the Minister of State had been contacted by the writer of the article and had responded in a manner not unlike that in which he responded to this House. I did not see a huge amount of information which was not either placed on the record of the House or could not be drawn by inference from what the Minister of State said. All went back to the welfare of the child.
Similar unease has been displayed by two other friendly jurisdictions. I referred to this matter in the past week but I cannot quite remember where I did so. It may have been in this House. Both these jurisdictions, Sweden and the United States, are well disposed to the interests of children. We are not alone in having these difficulties.
When we debated the Bill on Wednesday last, I asked the Minister of State if the difficulties were at this end or principally at the Vietnamese end. In these circumstances, the Minister of State must be a diplomat as well as a legislator. He would probably not regard it as wise to make a blistering attack on the Vietnamese system while attempting to negotiate an agreement. The lethargy on the Vietnamese side, if such it be, is not something the Minister of State can control immediately or effectively, beyond using his diplomatic skills.
I understood from the debate on that day that a team from the Department had visited Vietnam three times in recent months. I had the impression the Minister of State had been on one of those visits. Apparently, this is not the case but I ask the Minister of State to clarify this point. If he has not visited Vietnam, now may be the time to go. He may agree that in the Orient the question of status can be quite important, irrelevant though it ought to be. The Civil Service is dealing with this matter all the time but a visit by someone of the status of the Minister of State might help to unblock a logjam.
The matters raised in the newspaper articles, especially the use of fees, have been adverted to by my colleagues. I do not accuse any Irish people of this, but the article makes an implicit suggestion that there is some degree of unfairness to natural parents who have what they would regard as considerable sums of money dangled in front of them by orphanages. That is a real and striking human condition. As the welfare of the child is paramount, should we not consider those circumstances? Would it not be a humane thing to support such families, see if they wish to stay together and discover why they are giving up children? People no longer give up children in this environment. What is so different about Vietnam?

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: The Vietnamese-----

Senator David Norris: I have heard all Senator Healy Eames's emotions. I am trying to deal with the matter rationally.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Norris should make his remarks through the Chair.

Senator David Norris: Those families should also be considered. As human beings we must ask ourselves why so many children are being given up there but not here and what we can do in the best interests of the children. I am not at all antagonistic and I understand the human feelings of people in this country who want children, but that is not sufficient. It must be the welfare of the child. I say that with the greatest respect to people who wish to adopt and I am quite sure several of them will do so.
The Minister of State, in his comments to the House, was circumspect in the way in which he dealt with it. He indicated that he was interested in the rights of the child. On reflection, every person in the House would recognise the human feelings of adults, people who have a need to have children and particularly people who believe they had been on the path of getting children but then that was very cruelly taken away from them. All this must be taken into account. However, the welfare of the children and the circumstances in which they came up for adoption is paramount.
Let us bear in mind we can all be very pious and sanctimonious here and we can all write and so on and succumb to the sometimes very civilised but sometimes very ignorant and blistering correspondence we receive from people who are desperate to have children. I do not pull my punches in writing back to the people who are ignorant to me or who tell me that my secretary will spend the rest of her life answering their e-mails or letters. No she will not and they are going straight into the bin where they belong. However, how would the House feel if in ten years' time a Government report, a statutory inquiry or an international commission were held and things emerged not to the advantage of the children? How would people feel then? They might believe we should have been cautious and circumspect. It is the case that we must respect the feelings of the prospective parents, but we must also bear in mind the welfare of the children as paramount at the end of the day.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Barry Andrews): I met representative associations last Friday and we discussed some of the issues that have been raised in the Seanad. I also spoke to The Irish Times and the matter of fees and consents was mentioned. We discussed the circumstances in which the Government made a decision last December based on a visit to Vietnam, the report arising from that visit and the circumstances in which the Government would continue with the process of seeking a bilateral agreement with Vietnam. We were able to make the distinctions between the concerns about such issues as fees, consents etc. that were ventilated by other countries. We made the distinction in the way adoptions occurred in Ireland and it is very important that one reads that very carefully.
There is a danger in speaking in public on this very sensitive and emotive issue at this very sensitive and emotive time. Nevertheless, the Americans compiled a report during the autumn setting out its concerns. It would have had an influence in our decision not to roll over the existing bilateral agreement at that time. It would have informed the way we were thinking in the autumn about how to approach this issue. As Senator Norris correctly stated, at all times one must ensure the welfare of the child is paramount. We are not on the same sheet on this issue, but the primary importance of the child's rights are always at the top of our considerations.
What else was I asked to clarify?

Senator David Norris: A visit.

Deputy Barry Andrews: It is very unfair that Senator Heady Eames should ventilate in public what I said to her in private. In my professional life as a school teacher, a barrister and a politician, I never experienced someone betraying such a confidence. It is despicable. It is highly unfair to have such a matter discussed or referred to in any other circumstances. I cannot "un-say" what the Senator said but I must mark my cards in future in talking to her as a colleague in the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: It is all on the record in The Irish Times.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Minister of State, without interruption, please.

Deputy Barry Andrews: I have simply clarified the distinction to Senator Healy Eames and she should have the patience to let me speak about this issue-----

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Please do so.

Deputy Barry Andrews: -----rather than losing the run of herself and getting hysterical again.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: No one is hysterical. The Minister of State should simply answer the question I asked.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Minister of State, without interruption, please.

Deputy Barry Andrews: I have answered the questions asked. The distinction is that at the time we were considering this in the autumn, those issues were raised by another jurisdiction. We were satisfied that we had safeguards in place, which I also underlined and to which I referred in the article that caused such upset. We have safeguards in place. I also mentioned that we seek relations with countries with which we have bilateral relations because adoptions would carry on anyway even if we did not have bilateral agreements. That is the least attractive option as far as I am concerned. There is a value in having a bilateral agreement in any case.
I meant no offence to the House and I stated time and again that the process of having Committee Stage and Report Stage in the House has been very productive. It has enhanced my knowledge of this area and the experience of the people who spoke in their professional capacity has been of great assistance to me.
In respect of travel, I indicated that I will go at the earliest opportunity when I believe it will be useful to the process. I underlined this point to the associations I met last Friday. This remains the position and I am ready to go whenever I believe it will be useful to the process. The underlying point is that the Government remains very anxious to have a bilateral agreement with the Vietnamese Government.
I refer to the amendment under discussion and the background to the concerns raised. We have safe and secure adoptions and once an adoption order is made, it is considered safe and secure. The amendment suggests the High Court would have a review mechanism that would automatically kick in. It shall review the status of the adoption under the law of this State where it has been annulled in another country. There is already a right in the Act under section 49(3) for the adoption authority to refer any matter of law to the High Court. The authority shall refer to the High Court for determination any question in respect of public policy arising with respect to entries in the register of inter-country adoption. Section 19 states that the first and primary consideration shall be the best interests of children. These matters are dealt with in the legislation.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I am grateful to the Minister of State for giving a considered response. Clearly, there are still issues the details of which we are not fully aware. As I mentioned, we appreciate the sensitivities in this case and that the Minister cannot provide the full picture of what is taking place. As the Minister remarked, we are all concerned about the welfare of the child, whether in Vietnam or here. The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. We are also conscious of our history in Ireland and the problems in the past with adoption procedures not being robust and not having sufficient safeguards for the birth parents. We are all very concerned to ensure no birth parents should give up a child for adoption under duress of any form. This must be foremost in our minds. We all very much support the principle behind the Bill and the principle enshrined in the Hague conference. These points are all important.
I accept the Minister of State's point that the provision to the effect that the welfare of the child is the first and paramount consideration is contained elsewhere, but it is still important that it is contained here.

Neither Senator Norris nor I propose to push the amendment, but we ask the Minister of State to consider whether it could be inserted in a more general provision elsewhere, perhaps in section 92.
Some of the later amendments relate to the importance of tracing. We are conscious of that need when talking about ensuring watertight adoption agreements are made with specific countries, that there is no duress and people give consent freely to relinquishing children. The other side of this is we need to ensure tracing services are in place for children who have been adopted. Later on they are often caused great distress because they cannot trace their birth parents. This is one of the reasons we must ensure any agreements we make with other countries are robust and the systems in place in those countries have sufficient safeguards for the birth parents to ensure there is no duress, coercion or undue influence brought to bear on parents placing children for adoption. We must bear all this in mind while at the same time recognising the distress of the prospective adopters here who are being left in an uncertain position. However, I do not propose to push the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator Phil Prendergast: I move amendment No. 69:
In page 65, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“(d) promoting the development of post adoption services;”.
There is no provision for the development of post adoption services in the Bill. The welfare of the child is at the heart of this amendment. There is a real need for this amendment because there are situations and instances where the provision of post adoption services are vital to the welfare of the child. I acknowledge the highly emotive aspect of this. It can be an overwhelming experience to receive a child. Therefore, the legislation should ensure that services are provided that acknowledge the integration of the child into the society it has come to. This is important.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: I second the amendment and support it. I know the Minister of State was angry earlier, but it was patronising to say the contribution of Senator Healy Eames was hysterical. I do not believe it was. There is a long history of women being called hysterical when people do not like what they are saying.

Deputy Barry Andrews: I accept that and apologise. I withdraw the remark.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: This is an important amendment. Currently, adoption agencies provide intermediary information and tracing services to birth parents, adopted adults and adoptive families. The legislation does not provide any legislative basis for this work. We have had a number of discussions about the changing face of adoption, open adoptions, ongoing contact etc. and the legislation will become out of date quickly if we do not incorporate some of these aspects. I understand the Minister of State is constrained constitutionally in terms of what he can do with regard to some of these aspects. However, there is concern with regard to the issue of tracing because there is no legislative basis to provide services that currently operate.
Many of the agencies working in this area believe the adoption authority, as well as having responsibility for adoption services, should also undertake research projects and activities on adoption and post adoption services. There will be significant demand in the area of tracing, not just nationally, but internationally. Therefore, I urge the Minister of State to consider accepting this amendment. Will he indicate whether the amendment is one he will consider when the legislation goes to the Dáil?

Senator David Norris: I support the amendment. The development of post adoptive services needs a legislative basis. Like almost everybody in the House, I have been contacted over the years by numerous people who needed to trace relatives, people who had been placed in various well-meaning adoption societies, particularly some of the Church of Ireland ones. Many societies seem to have dumped their records for some reason or lost them or the agency has closed, with no attempt made to retrieve, preserve or transfer the records to a more sophisticated, mechanised method. This has the effect of depriving people of a significant part of their emotional heritage and lineage. Therefore, I support the amendment.
I do not in any sense challenge the ruling of the Chair; I would not have the temerity to do so. However, I notice that amendment No. 71 in my name, which proposed adding an additional provision, "(d) undertaking or assisting in research project and activities relating to adoption and post adoption services;", has been ruled out of order because it did not arise from Committee proceedings. If it did not arise from the Committee proceedings, it is a mystery to me how the amendment that survives on the Order Paper did, because it deals with precisely the same area and could not be more germane. The mind of the Cathaoirleach is a mystery to me.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Cathaoirleach has made his ruling.

Senator David Norris: I understand that and will obey it as unctuously as I can. However, it is one of the great mysteries, whether a joyful, sorrowful or glorious one.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We are on amendment No. 69.

Senator David Norris: I feel that as amendment No. 69 was allowed, discussion of amendment No. 71 should also have been allowed. If the Minister of State proposes to accept the idea of promoting the development of post adoption services, I put it to him - this shows my ingenuity - that among the areas that might be developed should be the undertaking of or assisting in research projects and activities related to adoption and post adoption. That is development. I am aware of the weight "development" can carry as a word and it is a word included in both amendments. Therefore, there should be no constraint whatever on the Minister of State in his response in taking into account the question of research projects and activities relating to adoption, because they are germane and as relevant as the positive amendment we have been discussing.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I support the amendment. Post adoption services will increase in importance. There is a great deal of awareness of the need for adults adopted as children to be able to acquire information about their past, their birth parents and their lineage. This is true for both national and international adoptions. Therefore, post adoption services will be of increasing importance. We have had difficulties in the past where records have been destroyed or gone missing. This has made the situation difficult and distressing for adopted persons when they find they cannot access the information. We need to ensure there is a statutory basis for services, to include the tracing services that must be encompassed in any sort of post adoption services.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Before I speak in support of the amendment I wish to clarify for the Minister of State that I broke no confidence before he did so himself in The Irish Times. I expect he will respect that.
I support this amendment on the need to promote the development of post adoption services. We all support the key issue, the welfare of the child. If we are serious about the welfare of children being adopted, post adoption services should be put in place. Otherwise, the circle is not closed. The child is always at the centre of the assessment process. The child's needs come first and the needs of the birth mother are second. Only after these needs are taken care of do the wishes of the adoptive family come into play. We speak over and over about the welfare of the child as if that is not primary in this jurisdiction. It is the primary issue. I know that categorically, having been through an adoption process assessment twice and from having spoken to many other adoptive couples.
Once a child is placed for adoption, post adoption services will be needed.

One of the post-adoption services that will be critical in future will be the tracing service that may be needed by some people. Other services may be needed sooner. I refer to health information, for example. It is critical we find a way of ensuring that post-adoption services are built into the legislation in some way. There should not be a breakdown at the point of adoption. We should complete the circle by ensuring the Bill accounts for the provision of post-adoption services.

Deputy Barry Andrews: This amendment suggests the adoption authority should be involved in "promoting the development of post adoption services". The use of the word "promoting" tends to suggest something should be encouraged in some way, for example to ensure it happens. The use of that word needs to be examined in the first instance. It has been said many times in this House that the assessment process is a tough one. Support and information is given to parents during that exhaustive process. Nobody who has a child in a natural way has to go through such a process. Supports are available before an adoption occurs. I have made it clear previously that the protection of the Child Care Act 1991, which applies to any child who is a citizen of this country, is afforded to children when an adoption occurs. All children are treated in exactly the same way. That is how adoption is understood in this country. The psychological, health and child protection needs of a child who is being adopted are catered for under the Child Care Act 1991 in the same way as those of any other child. We have to underline that point. It is clear that there should be no distinction between adopted children and other children. Under this legislation, when an adoption has taken place, the adoption authority and the HSE must be notified of it. I accept the records of many adoption societies, which were compiled when Ireland was effecting adoptions as a sending state, are gathering dust. Many of those records are not being well maintained. I have met representatives of the adopted persons society to see if there is some way of maintaining or centralising such records. Such a process would attract significant problems, but we are considering it nonetheless. As I have already said, I will give further consideration to the issue of tracing, which was mentioned in the context of an earlier amendment. I will reflect further on it when this Bill is being debated in the Dáil.

Senator Phil Prendergast: I thank the Minister of State for his response. I will press the amendment.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 22.

Tá
Bacik, Ivana.
Bradford, Paul.
Burke, Paddy.
Buttimer, Jerry.
Coffey, Paudie.
Coghlan, Paul.
Cummins, Maurice.
Fitzgerald, Frances.
Healy Eames, Fidelma.
McFadden, Nicky.
Mullen, Rónán.
Norris, David.
O'Toole, Joe.
Prendergast, Phil.
Regan, Eugene.
Ross, Shane.

Níl
Brady, Martin.
Butler, Larry.
Callely, Ivor.
Carty, John.
Cassidy, Donie.
Corrigan, Maria.
Ellis, John.
Feeney, Geraldine.
Glynn, Camillus.
Hanafin, John.
Leyden, Terry.
MacSharry, Marc.
McDonald, Lisa.
O'Brien, Francis.
O'Donovan, Denis.
O'Sullivan, Ned.
Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
Ormonde, Ann.
Phelan, Kieran.
Walsh, Jim.
Wilson, Diarmuid.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Ivana Bacik and Phil Prendergast; Níl, Senators Camillus Glynn and Diarmuid Wilson.

Amendment declared lost.

An Cathaoirleach: Amendment No. 70 is out of order because it does not arise from Committee proceedings. Amendment No. 71 in the names of Senators Norris and Bacik is also out of order because it does not arise from Committee proceedings.

Senator David Norris: We managed to discuss it obliquely on another amendment.

Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 not moved.

Amendment No. 72 not moved.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: I move amendment No. 73:
In page 65, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
"(h) promoting the development of intermediary, information and tracing services for birth families and adopted persons.".

Senator Phil Prendergast: I second the amendment.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 22.

Tá
Bacik, Ivana.
Bradford, Paul.
Burke, Paddy.
Buttimer, Jerry.
Coffey, Paudie.
Coghlan, Paul.
Cummins, Maurice.
Fitzgerald, Frances.
Healy Eames, Fidelma.
McFadden, Nicky.
Mullen, Rónán.
Norris, David.
O'Toole, Joe.
Prendergast, Phil.
Regan, Eugene.

Níl
Brady, Martin.
Butler, Larry.
Callely, Ivor.
Carty, John.
Cassidy, Donie.
Corrigan, Maria.
Ellis, John.
Feeney, Geraldine.
Glynn, Camillus.
Leyden, Terry.
MacSharry, Marc.
McDonald, Lisa.
Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
O'Brien, Francis.
O'Donovan, Denis.
O'Sullivan, Ned.
Ormonde, Ann.
Phelan, Kieran.
Walsh, Jim.
White, Mary M.
Wilson, Diarmuid.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Maurice Cummins; Níl, Senators Camillus Glynn and Diarmuid Wilson.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 74 to 78, inclusive, not moved.

Government amendment No. 79:
In page 66, lines 15 to 17, to delete all words from and including "entered" in line 15 down to and including "1978" in line 17 and substitute the following:
"included in a division of the register of medical practitioners referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) of section 43 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 (as amended by the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2007, No. 42 of 2007)".

Deputy Barry Andrews: Section 98 of the Bill covers membership of the authority. The Government amendment is proposed to replace references to "Medical Practitioners Act 1978" with "Medical Practitioners Act 2007". It is a technical amendment that arises because the register of medical practitioners referred to in section 98(3)(d), which was established under section 26 of the Medical Practitioners Act 1978, has been replaced by a new register established under section 43 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007, as amended by the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2007. The relevant section was commenced on 16 March 2009.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: This is a technical amendment and we accept it.

Amendment agreed to.


An Cathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 are out of order as they involve a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Senator David Norris: I would be interested in an explanation for this as amendment No. 81 simply states: "one shall be a person with direct personal experience of adoption, namely an adopted person". It is simply a back-up. The position will be filled and paid anyway. I am astonished at this. It defies common sense that the amendment could possibly create a charge on the Exchequer that does not already exist.
I will explain it as follows. Let us suppose six people are to be appointed to the Seanad at a cost of €50,000 each. If there is an amendment stating that one of these shall be a Mormon, that could not be held to create a charge on the Exchequer because there is no additional cost. It is simply qualifying who the person shall be. With the greatest respect, a Chathaoirligh, I ask for your guidance in this matter because it may well be something I have not seen and the Minister of State's advisers may be able to comment through you or the Minister of State. It seems to defy logic. I am not defying the ruling of the Cathaoirleach; I am simply asking if it is possible to have an explanation.

An Cathaoirleach: The amendment is ruled out of order because it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer, as is the case for a number of other amendments.

Senator David Norris: I have just pointed out that it could not possibly do so.

An Cathaoirleach: On amendment No. 81-----

Senator David Norris: Yes. The amendment simply states that one of the people shall be something or other. I have just explained it in terms of six people nominated to the Seanad under legislation, each of which costs €50,000. If an amendment stated that one of them must be a Roman Catholic or one of them must be from Ulster, that is a qualification but it does not create a charge on the Exchequer. I do not see how it possibly could. It could not. It is just absurd. If the Cathaoirleach would permit some discussion of this technical point without discussing the amendment, perhaps my colleagues or the Minister of State could comment on it.

An Cathaoirleach: I cannot allow discussion of the amendment but I will take a comment from Senator Fitzgerald on this point.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: Amendment No. 80 has been ruled out of order for the same reason. I ask the Minister of State to consider these amendments when he brings this legislation to the Dáil. It is general practice now to include in such authorities people who are affected by legislation and to bring their experience on board when key decisions are being taken. It is important, given the number of people who are adopted and the number experiencing inter-country adoptions, that amendment No. 80 be considered by the Minister of State and that such representatives be included if at all possible. It may not, as Senator Norris has said, represent any extra cost to the Exchequer.

Senator David Norris: Where did this ruling come from? It did not come from the Cathaoirleach; that is a polite fiction. It must have come from the Department of Finance. It does not know what it is talking about. I agree with the point made by Senator Fitzgerald, but whatever the argument about amendment No. 80, which might appear to add additional personnel, mine does not. It simply adds a qualification. I really must ask for a proper explanation. Otherwise the House is being treated with contempt. Nothing could more clearly illustrate how idiotic it is to have this restriction on the Upper House of the Oireachtas. I will not even go into the state of the country. No one in the House, however challenged intellectually, could make a worse hames of the economy, including the Department of Finance. I do not accept it and I want a ruling to which I can give some assent. This is absurd.

An Cathaoirleach: No. 81 involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Senator David Norris: How?

An Cathaoirleach: The information from the Department and from the Minister of State's office is indicating that.

Senator David Norris: I ask the Minister of State to give an explanation for this because it cannot possibly involve a charge.

An Cathaoirleach: Perhaps the Minister of State would like to comment.

Deputy Barry Andrews: Whatever about the issue of a charge on the Exchequer, we are asked to consider the membership on the adoption authority of a person who has been adopted. It is open to members of Fine Gael and the Labour Party to introduce this amendment in the Dáil. I do not mean any slight against the Seanad in that regard. It is not for me to explain the issue of the charge on the Exchequer. I have given no consideration to that issue.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: It is much broader than that.

Deputy Barry Andrews: It is open to people to raise this matter in the Dáil.

Senator David Norris: I will leave it at that, but I want the record of the House to show that it is a complete absurdity and that there is no possible charge on the Exchequer. Once again this is being used to get an amendment out of the remit of the Seanad. They shove it down as a charge on the Exchequer. It is patent rubbish.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator heard what the Minister of State said.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I support my colleague Senator Norris on this point. It is far too easy to rule amendments out of order for reasons that do not stand up. I do not blame the Minister of State for not being in a position to explain it, but this follows on from an earlier discussion we had about the perceived relevance of the Seanad. If rulings are to be made that certain amendments are not to be discussed because they are out of order, we need a reason for those decisions. Senator Norris says he will not press it any further.

Senator David Norris: I cannot. We cannot have a vote.

Senator Rónán Mullen: Can the Cathaoirleach reverse this decision? Is it in the power of the Cathaoirleach under Standing Orders to change his mind at this point and allow the amendment to be discussed?

An Cathaoirleach: The Bill will be going to the Dáil next and in the event of an amendment, it will return to the House.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: The key point on this issue is the make-up of the membership of the adoption authority. There should be at least one person who has been adopted or is a birth parent or adoptive parent. I do not mind whether there is a net cost. That is not the issue. Can the Minister of State assure the House that the authority will have representatives with this unique experience on it? Any mainstream parent or birth child would not necessarily have such experience. If the Minister of State could ensure the authority had that type of membership, I would be happy.

An Cathaoirleach: We are not getting into the amendment as I have ruled in this regard.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I ask the Cathaoirleach to let us have an answer.

Senator Diarmuid Wilson: I agree with Senator Norris with regard to this amendment, which is quite sensible. I ask the Minister of State to consider changing this himself in the Dáil rather than expecting members of the Opposition to put forward amendments. It is sensible to ask that one member would be a person with direct personal experience of adoption, namely, an adopted person. Who better than someone who has experienced this process him or herself? It is quite sensible. I ask the Minister of State to consider amending the Bill himself in this regard.

Senator David Norris: Does the Senator think it creates a charge on the Exchequer, after my explanation? It does not.

Senator Diarmuid Wilson: No, I do not.

Senator David Norris: I thank the Senator.

An Cathaoirleach: I rule that No. 81 is out of order.

Senator David Norris: It must go on the record that the Government spokesperson has said it is a good amendment. He thinks it is correct and that it does not create a charge on the Exchequer, and he has asked the Minister of State to consider the issue. That is an important point. In light of this, we need to review our procedures in the House. I say that with no disrespect to the Cathaoirleach or the staff of the House. We want to play as vital a role as possible in the parliamentary procedures of this country.

An Cathaoirleach: I appreciate Senator Norris and other Senators raising this important matter. The Minister of State has noted their comments and said he will consider it in the other House.
Amendment No. 82, in the name of Senators Fitzgerald and Cummins, is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Amendments Nos. 80 to 82, inclusive, not moved.

An Cathaoirleach: Amendment No. 83 is cognate with No. 84 and both may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Phil Prendergast: I move amendment No. 83:
In page 67, lines 35 and 36, to delete "vacancy, or (c) a member of a local authority." and substitute the following:
"vacancy.".
I had a problem with the Bill as originally drafted because I did not know why members of local authorities were disqualified from the adoption board. It is an example of how the role of councillors is not seen as all-encompassing, although I believe it is. The purpose of the amendment is to widen the remit. I believe councillors have an important role to play.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I second the amendment.

Deputy Barry Andrews: The proposed amendment would allow local authority members to be eligible for appointment as members of the authority or its committees. The authority is an expert board with quasi-judicial functions and, as such, it is not just local authority members who are excluded; members of the European Parliament and Oireachtas Members are also excluded, to ensure there is no political influence in a matter where a quasi-judicial function is exercised.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 not moved.

Senator Phil Prendergast: I move amendment No. 86:
In page 93, lines 16 and 17, to delete all words from and including "ensuring" in line 16 down to and including "bodies" in line 17 and substitute the following:
"promoting the carrying out of the activities specified in sections 4 and 5 by accredited bodies".
The International Adoption Association has a view on this. Under current provisions, any support organisation may be required to become an accredited body, subject to oversight by the Adoption Board. The association does not condone any practice that would be ill-informed or that would involve a lack of oversight. We should recognise that it provides invaluable support and education for the adoptive community. It feels it could be constrained by having to seek and maintain registration. It is not clear why this incorporation would be required or the extent to which it would be required. The association feels that any such requirement for registration in respect of non-direct arrangements for adoption could act to undermine democratic advocacy on behalf of the community.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: I second the amendment. The support groups would find it difficult to continue with the work they are doing currently and would find some of these demands too onerous. We want high standards and regulation, however, so I would like to hear what the Minister of State has to say about any possible difficulties for advocacy bodies or lobbying groups if this provision remains in the legislation.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I agree with Senator Fitzgerald. These support and advocacy groups are critical to couples going through the adoption process. The International Adoption Association has offered great support throughout this process for many couples and it would be a shame if the association was hindered because these couples would otherwise be alone.

Deputy Barry Andrews: The amendment relates to section 151(1), which states, "Without prejudice to the generality of section 150, the Minister shall make such regulations as he or she thinks appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that the activities specified in sections 4 and 5 are carried on only by accredited bodies." We all recognise that accredited bodies play a vital role. We have all been under pressure as Oireachtas Members on this issue. All the agencies have helped to keep people up to date in an area where it is difficult to disseminate information because we are negotiating with another jurisdiction.
The purpose of section 151 of the Bill is to enable the Minister to make regulations under the Act. The purpose of those regulations is to regulate the activities of accredited bodies rather than to promote them. An accredited body may apply to be registered for the activities related to the making of arrangements for the adoption of a child, including those activities specified in sections 4 and 5.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: This has been a long and detailed debate. This Bill incorporates into Irish law the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. Since Ireland ratified that convention, 16 years have elapsed so we have waited a long time for the legislation. It is important that the Bill brings all aspects of legislation into line with the Hague Convention and brings us closer to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
When we are dealing with this area, the legislation before the House is just one aspect of adoption and huge issues arise on the implementation of the legislation, waiting lists for couples and the need for an agency other than the HSE to be involved. The Minister of State indicated that he would support this. During the debate we also raised important issues about guardianship, post-adoption services and the need for ongoing support for all involved in the adoption process.
A key issue that came up in the debate was that of bilateral agreements. At the conclusion of the debate, we are still in an unsatisfactory position as far as those agreements are concerned. Fine Gael had suggested a mechanism by which the Minister would have to come back to the Dáil or Seanad six months before the lapse of any bilateral agreement to inform the Houses about progress. If such a measure had been in place for the Vietnamese situation, there would have been discussion at an earlier point on the issue. It would have helped the Minister of State and I regret that he did not accept the amendment on that issue.
This Bill leaves the House with a degree of uncertainty about the bilateral agreements with Vietnam, Ethiopia and Russia. There is a great deal to be done by the Minister of State and the Department on these agreements, given the inter-country nature of the work.

I hope the Minister of State is given the necessary resources. I have no doubt that the demand on departmental resources in regard to concluding these agreements is extensive. I hope progress will be reported on this issue when this legislation goes to the Dáil.
The Minister of State indicated that he would consider a range of amendments we put forward. He more or less accepted a number of potential amendments but did not bring forward similar amendments and I regret that. I am disappointed he did not do so but I hope they will be brought forward when the Bill is taken in the Dáil. They are useful and their inclusion would strengthen the legislation.
A number of areas are not addressed in the legislation. Given that we have had to wait 16 years for this legislation, to some degree, it deals with an era when adoption was dealt with somewhat differently. The issues about contact, ongoing contact and tracing are not dealt with. Given the changing face of adoption and the increasing number of inter-country adoptions, these issues will increase. The fact that there is no legislative base for many of them is problematic and needs to be addressed. One of the reasons some of these issues could not be addressed during this debate is that the amendment on the rights of the child was not brought forward by the Government. If it had been, we would be dealing with some provisions of the legislation in a different way.
I welcome the introduction of this Bill. I regret more amendments were not accepted during this debate but I acknowledge the willingness of the Minister of State to bring forward such amendments when the Bill is taken in the Dáil and l welcome his response to many of them.
I regret that the Minister of State briefed The Irish Times rather than this House on several aspects of the legislation. We have already had a long discussion on that matter today and I will not repeat it. There has been much debate recently on reform of this House. If the Seanad, as well as the Dáil and committees, is to be taken seriously, Opposition amendments must be accepted by the Government. Senator Wilson spoke in favour of an amendment tabled by this side of the House. I have had experience of the acceptance of Opposition amendments by some Ministers in committees over the years. It is a mark of maturity to accept and incorporate in legislation amendments from the other side of the House. That is what should happen in both Houses. It strengthens democracy and the work of this House and lends increased credibility to the Houses.
I look forward to seeing what further amendments the Minister of State will bring forward when the Bill is taken in the Dáil. I thank his officials for the time, energy and effort they put into preparing this legislation. I hope they have success in concluding the bilateral agreements, which are of importance to many people and are a cause of great concern and deep emotional upset to families currently caught in this situation.

An Cathaoirleach: At the conclusion of a Bill it is normally only the spokespersons who make brief comments on it.

Senator David Norris: With the greatest respect, I challenge the Cathaoirleach's view on that. I have served here for 21 years and, traditionally, Members spoke, at some moderate length, particularly on an important Bill such as this one. It would not be appropriate to close such provision and I am glad the Cathaoirleach, in his wisdom, did not do so.
I welcome this Bill. I believe everybody would agree that for Ireland finally to be brought into line with the Hague Convention in this respect must be a good measure. Senator Fitzgerald stated this clearly. The Minister of State and the Civil Service can be complimented on doing that. There are divided opinions about other aspects of the Bill.
We have learned that considerable emotional charges surround this Bill. This is understandable in a human sense. In terms of the blunt instrument of a mass e-mail campaign - I hope the canvassing and lobbying groups will also learn a little bit from this - it is not intelligent to catch people who are on one's side in friendly fire. That simply eliminates support or, perhaps, can even negative it. This mass scattergun approach does not always help politics. If the approach were more focused, that would help all of us. I say that as somebody who loves to get a good brief.
With regard to the Minister of State, I am not sure that there were any huge areas that were not at least stated or implied; I make that point to be positive. I would like to place on record my gratitude to Carol Coulter for once again writing an absolutely excellent series of articles on this important subject in which she raised significant issues.
I had to leave the Chamber briefly during which time I managed to put in ear plugs and listen to a contemporaneous debate on RTE Radio 1 on which a number of international experts were discussing this Bill and the Vietnamese situation. The kinds of phrases used were about buying and selling children and whether this could happen. This was the concern of the Americans and Swedes. We would be well advised to take this into consideration. The Bill presented a good opportunity for us to examine this idea and to make sure this does not happen.
It should also be placed on record, because it was placed on record over the airwaves for the Irish public, that the Department and the Minister of State were not insensitive to the feelings of people. A practical, professional approach was taken when Mr. Geoffrey Shannon, the leading authority in this country in this area, was sent, as one of the principal officers of the Department, as a member of a delegation to Vietnam to explore this situation. That seems to be a proper, professional way to address this issue. However, it may well be that the visit by a Minister would be helpful because of the way in which these matters are regarded in the Orient, the question of status, saving face and such matters. I am glad that the Minister of State has given a commitment that he will go there.
I was glad to take part in this debate and I learned a great deal from it. There were some exciting amendments, including my own. I got quite snotty occasionally, but I also learned a good deal from the passionate contributions of others. It was interesting that many of the most passionate speakers were women. The contributions were led by Senator Fitzgerald on this side, ably backed by Senator Healy Eames, Senator Bacik on our side, Senator Prendergast of the Labour Party and Senator Mary White of Fianna Fáil. I felt as in the title of a John McGahern novel "Amongst Women" and I was very glad and comfortable to be among women.
I welcome the passage of this Bill through the House. It may not be perfect, but legislation rarely is. Something most interesting occurred during this debate and I say this in a non-contentious way. Senator Wilson, my good friend, whom I respect greatly, had the honesty to acknowledge that an amendment I put forward was a good one and that in his view - he was persuaded by the irrefutable logic of what I said - it did not create a charge on the Exchequer. In terms of Seanad reform, we need to examine this method of the ruling out of amendments. I thank my colleagues for informing me and opening my mind in as far as it can be opened. I thank the Minister of State and his staff for passing what will be a positive step in safeguarding the welfare of children in this country.

Senator Phil Prendergast: I will not repeat the points that have been made as they are many and varied and they echo my thoughts on this subject. I am not being contentious in saying that I had no difficulty with the quality or the quantity of e-mails received.

Senator David Norris: The Senator did not get one from me.

Senator Phil Prendergast: People express themselves in the best way they know how and sometimes frustration can lead them to couch their views in a certain way. It is our job not to take such comments personally. I can understand the why people might do that because I worked for many years in dealing with people who were infertile and undergoing the many treatments involved in that respect and it gave me an insight into what I could contribute to this debate.

I am delighted and I thank the Minister for listening to us and taking part in the debate. I thank the officials, the Cathaoirleach and everybody connected with this.

Senator Diarmuid Wilson: I welcome this Bill and thank the Minister and his officials for the work and effort they put into it. Like Senator Norris, I pay tribute to those who contributed to it. I will begin by complimenting Senator Mary White, our spokesperson, and all the other Senators, including Senators Fitzgerald, Healy Eames, Prendergast, who contributed to this very worthy Bill. It is a very emotive and sensitive issue which is very close to my heart. We would like to see more amendments accepted in this House. Much debate takes place here, probably more detailed debate than takes place in the other House. The Minister will make every effort to take on board the points of view made by my colleagues on both sides and take on board some of the amendments in the Lower House.

Senator Phil Prendergast: Hear, hear.

Senator Nicky McFadden: Hear, hear.

Senator Diarmuid Wilson: I again thank the Minister, his officials and everybody who contributed to this Bill.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I welcome the introduction of the Bill in the Seanad. It is not over yet as it still has to be concluded in the Dáil. This is a historical step in terms of adoption in this country. We are ratifying and bringing into law the Hague Convention and are strengthening the standards of child protection and child welfare in this country. I thank the Minister for bringing it to the House and the officials for working so closely with him. The families affected by adoption and the whole adoptive community have also brought much to this debate.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: Hear, hear.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: They have taught us much and that needs to be noted. They even caused a briefing for the Fianna Fáil Party by the Minister, and anything that brings about that is worthy of note.
I have regrets about some of the amendments that were not taken on board by the Minister, but I am hopeful that he will examine them in the Dáil. My main regret is that at the conclusion of the Bill in the Seanad, the bilateral agreement with Vietnam is not yet sorted. For anybody involved in adoption this is intensely personal and private and is about the creation of families. It is important that the Minister, I and everybody here learn much about not letting the bilateral agreements with the Russian Federation and Ethiopia end up in the same place as the one with Vietnam, and I ask the Minister to begin the preparatory work. The post-placement records with the Russian Federation need to be concluded. In his final words to the House, the Minister gave an assurance that he will provide regular updates to the adoptive community until the bilateral agreements are sorted. That would be most helpful. I look forward to the conclusion of the Bill in the Dáil.

Deputy Barry Andrews: I thank everybody for their contributions. Senator Wilson said that more amendments could have been accepted. It is my first time bringing substantial legislation through any House or committee. The Bill will certainly have the fingerprints of the Seanad on it, whether the amendments were accepted in this House or later. Senator Fitzgerald said it has taken a very long time to get this far. As I said, the debate in the Seanad has been extremely helpful to me. It has improved the legislation and widened our knowledge on this constantly developing area. I, too, regret that the bilateral agreement with Vietnam has not been resolved and I remain committed to resolving it.
I thank the Members for the forbearance they have shown in the debates we have had on this very emotive issue. I hope in future I will be in a position to be more responsive to amendments. I tried to accept the spirit of the amendments as far as I could within the advice I received. I acknowledge Senator Norris, who is anxious that I would travel - I think he wants to get rid of me. I will do that as soon as possible, as I indicated. Senator Healy Eames and I will not fall out with each other on a permanent basis. Things are said in the heat of debate.

Senator Nicky McFadden: The Senator has not fallen out.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I do not know what the Minister of State is talking about.

Deputy Barry Andrews: I thank Senator Prendergast and the Labour Party and I thank Senator Bacik for all she contributed to this. I thank Senator Mary White who contributed considerably on behalf of Fianna Fáil.

Question put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach: When is it proposed to sit again?

Senator Diarmuid Wilson: At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.