Order of Business - 23rd February 2010

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

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

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

Order of Business - 18th February 2010

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Deputy Micheál Martin: Who said that?


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


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


Senator David Norris: This is why I say it.


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


Senator David Norris: Exactly.


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


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


An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator should conclude.


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

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

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

Statements on Cancer Awareness - 17th February 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Order of Business - 17th February 2010.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Order of Business - 16th February 2010

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

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


Senator Eoghan Harris: Is that right?


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


An Cathaoirleach: Time, Senator.


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


An Cathaoirleach: Senator——


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


An Cathaoirleach: I call Senator Ó Murchú.


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

Order of Business - 11th February 2010

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

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

Statements on Youth Unemployment - 10th February 2010.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Hear, hear.


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Hear, hear.


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Senator Nicky McFadden: We own it.


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


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


Senator Rónán Mullen: A passing reference.


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


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


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


Senator Rónán Mullen: I thank the Senator.


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

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

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

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


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


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


Senator Rónán Mullen: Hear, hear.


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

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


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


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


Senator David Norris: I think so.

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


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


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

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

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


Senator Paudie Coffey: It is influencing legislation.


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


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


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

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

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

Order of Business - 9th February 2010.

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

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

Order of Business - 4th February 2010.

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

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

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


Senators: Hear, hear.

Motion on Water and Roads Infrastructure - 3rd February 2010

Motion on Water and Roads Infrastructure - 3rd February 2010
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister and compliment my Fine Gael colleagues on tabling such an important motion. However, I am disappointed that, once again, we have this ding-dong approach between the two sides of the House. This is unhelpful, particularly because there is significant agreement between the motion and the amendment to it on the problem the country faces. There is a nuance on both sides to gain party political advantage, which is regrettable and not a good idea.

I very much agree with Senator Coffey that river maintenance has been poor in certain areas, particularly around the River Shannon. There is no doubt whatsoever that this has had an impact through increased flooding. We need to return to good care and maintenance of the river system which has been ignored in recent times.

I would like the Minister to address the following issue. Part of the problem, particularly in areas such as Cork city, was caused by the release of enormous amounts of water from the hydroelectric system or a dam. There are a number of reasons this should happen in an emergency, one of which might be a potential fracturing of the dam which might not necessarily be caused by weather conditions but by a structural failure. I could understand it in terms of a structural failure but it seems bizarre to do so in a flood. If there is a flood and if, owing to flooding, the reservoirs are too high and dam limits are being reached, surely to God people know that downstream the position will be just as bad, if not worse. It must have been absolutely maddening for those affected to realise part of the reason their houses were flooded in up to 10 ft. of water was the deliberate release of water into the system. Is it not possible to look at alternative methods of water management?

At the heart of this issue is the question of water management, ranging from simple measures such as people being advised to leave their taps running, which caused a huge drain on the system, although it was understandable if they were afraid their pipes would burst and so on, to the health aspects. It was not as a result of the snowfall and the severe weather conditions that we had, for example, severe pollution of water in Galway and other places caused by campylobacter virus and e.coli infection. We do not seem to be capable of managing our water resources, which I find aggravating.

Water management is a serious problem domestically and internationally. I remember meeting Shimon Peres. I was very impressed and interested because this happened quite a number of years ago and one of the issues he highlighted prophetically was that of water, that it would become one of the principal areas of conflict. However, we do not have much of an excuse because we have what the Minister described as raw water, God knows in abundance. If one looks out the window this evening, one will see we are not deficient in this resource. Water is available; it is a question of its management.

Just as in the macrocosm, in the microcosm the population is a pressure factor. We have a population which is increasing in size, particularly in the city of Dublin. This is exerting pressure on the water system. It is not appropriate to learn that in the Dublin area 50% of the water supply is leaking away and that there is approximately 8,000 km or other hughe figyure of water piping which is more than 80 years old. One cannot blame the Minister for this. The problem was let slide for 80 years. I remember, when the pipes were dug up in North Great George’s Street, that there were still in place some wooden pipes dating from the 18th century.

Current population growth estimates have led experts to believe that by 2031 the population of Dublin will be approximately 2.25 million. The population is currently 1.5 million and it consumes 550 million litres of water a day, which figure is expected to rise to approximately 800 million litres by 2031. If these estimates are accurate, by 2016 the Dublin area will require an alternative source of water. I am not sure if this issue has been addressed in the debate. That is another significant political and strategic element. This must be done to avoid serious water rationing and economic stagnation. The increase in the demand for water in the past ten years has essentially been dealt with by fixing leaks in the piping system, which is appropriate and of which we all approve, and expanding the limits of current facilities. However, by 2016 these measures will not be enough. The rate of leakage is 43% in some areas, although some say it is as high as 50%.

The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has provided a budget of €119 million to repair pipes in the greater Dublin area betweem 2006 and 2012 but more repairs are needed. Some of our urban areas are not expected to recover from the recent water shortage problems caused by the severe weather conditions and the spate of leaks and broken pipes for another three to four months. It astonishes me, as a citizen of Dublin, to see water carriers in the suburbs. That is an astonishing confession of failure.

The Vartry tunnel which supplies almost 80 million litres of water a day to the Dublin region is in desperate need of repairs. If something goes wrong with it, we will not be able to supply Dublin with water. I do not know if the Minister listens to Lyric FM but Gay Byrne was on about it. It was great fun. He said a fellow had told him there was a leak and that if one drove an articulated lorry over it, there would be a sound, the phonetics of which I cannot copy; perhaps the parliamentary reporter will report: “Phonetic illustration supplied by Senator Norris”. It was very funny on the radio but, by God, it would not be funny if it happened.

It is perfectly clear that the Government needs to find an alternative source of water for the greater Dublin area. There is no question that it must also repair the pipes, but that will not be enough. As the water reserves and facilities that supply Dublin also supply surrounding areas such as Dún Loaghaire and Fingal, it is critical that an alternative water supply is found for the Dublin region. Currently, it is supplied, for the most part, from four main plants, Ballymore Eustace and Leixlip, both of which draw from the River Liffey; Ballyboden which draws from the River Dodder and Roundwood which draws from the Vartry river. By 2016, at the latest, even with expanded facilities, these plants will no longer be able to keep up with the estimated demand for water.

We need to look at the River Shannon option, an issue which has raised screams from west of the River Shannon. It is proposed that extraction points be built along the River Shannon. Suggested points of extraction are Lough Rea and Lough Derg, with one option involving storage in former cutaway bogs to allow winter water to be stored for later use in dry summers, and the Parteen basin, with extraction near Parteen Weir. The River Shannon option would require new pipes to be built to bring water to Dublin, as well as pumping stations. It would also give the Government the ability to provide local authorities along the pipes’ route to the Dublin region with access to water.

Desalination is too expensive and not practical. Therefore, I do not believe it will happen. There is much to be done in terms of repairs and implementing new imaginative proposals.

I am 100% in support of water meters. One should pay for what one gets but there is no excuse for not being able to have a water supply in this climate.

The Minister referred to the attitude of Fine Gael and I hope Senator Coffey or one of his colleagues will reply. The Minister challenged Fine Gael to state if it was intent on privatising water services. If it is, let it come out and state this. I would oppose it 100%. There are facilities and utilities which should always be in public ownership. Even in the case of the monopolies board, services such as water, electricity and so on were always kept separate. They must be kept separate and I will support the Minister in that regard. I hope Fine Gael was not referring to the privatisation of water services.


Senator Maurice Cummins: No.


Senator David Norris: It was not — we have it from no less a source than Senator Cummins.

Statements on Headshops - 3rd February 2010.

Statements on Headshops - 3rd February 2010.
Senator David Norris: I very much welcome the opportunity to make a statement on this topic and, in particular, the time and trouble the Minister has taken to come into the House. I certainly have some suggestions to make as to how this matter can be addressed.

This issue has been evident for quite a while but in a minor way, although there have been tragic casualties resulting from the ingestion of magic mushrooms, psilocybin and other similar products. The Minister has acted directly under existing legislation, particularly the control of medicines Act, to outlaw the sale of magic mushrooms. However, that can only be partially effective, as people can still identify the fungi, pick them and take them. However, their sale in shops has been effectively curbed. The same has happened to BZP, benzylpiperazine, which has been shown to have serious adverse effects.

This issue was dormant and the Minister had examined certain aspects of it. That was until I heard some weeks ago a radio interview with a young doctor. He indicated that there had been an influx of people into casualty departments as a result of taking head shop substances which led to panic attacks, severe and recurring psychotic episodes and, like LSD, caused unpredictable results further down the line. It is clear head shops, so-called, have proliferated in the last while. According to the Garda, they are developing at the rate of one a month. As a result of this, I tabled a motion on 20 January seeking their regulation.

Subsequently, I heard Joe Duffy on his radio programme claim no one in Leinster House was listening to the concerns expressed about these shops and that the politicians, as usual, were doing absolutely nothing about it. I e-mailed him to say I had tabled a motion to that effect, raised the matter on the Order of Business and that the Seanad was moving towards all-party agreement on the issue. There were suggestions the motion be taken without debate but I am glad we decided on the making of statements. Mr. Duffy was on again today about the matter and I am glad Miss Grainne Kenny, a well known campaigner on the issue, drew his attention to the fact that Seanad Éireann was debating it. This shows we can be relevant, at least sometimes.

I know Miss Kenny would not agree with my position on drugs but I have been consistent on the issue. For many years I have said the way to address the drugs problem is through legalisation, regulation and quality control. Accordingly, the number of deaths would drop substantially. The level of crime would certainly be more than halved, even by 80% in inner cities, and the prison population would drop dramatically. However, I recognise this is a large political problem and cannot be tackled by one small country on its own. What I have recommended for illicit drugs, however, I recommend for head shops.

The traditional danger posed by head shop products is that they are untested, with very little oversight required in bringing them to the market. They are not tested on human beings and most of the data gathered are based on user reports. We only know their effects when a person appears in hospital or at his or her GP’s surgery. There is even less information available on these products and their possible side effects when combined with other drugs such as alcohol, prescription medications, other head shop products or cannabis, heroin and cocaine. The medical profession has often stated there is a real problem of multiple addiction through the interactive use of these substances which can be very dangerous. The chairman of the national advisory committee on drugs, Dr. Des Corrigan, said the majority of these products would not meet basic standards of quality control. That makes them even more dangerous. As I indicated, the Minister has acted and some of the substances that were available in head shops have now been banned.

There are difficulties. Even in the United States which traditionally has had a strict drug enforcement policy head shops continue to operate and have proved difficult and expensive to remove, as they operate in a grey area, as I have seen here in Dublin. They sell bongs, with which I am sure the Minister is unfamiliar, which allow the most efficient inhalation of the fumes of cannabis resin which is burned using a water pipe, frequently made of glass. They are marketed as water pipes. One is told rolling paper is used to roll ordinary tobacco.

Then there are legal drugs and herbal supplements, some of which have been mentioned, including bath salts. I must say that was laughable. If there is such a demand for bath salts, how many go into a pharmacy to say they would like a packet of Radox because they want to stick it up their noses? The answer is very few; it would probably be quite dangerous if they were to use in this way. However, because they are sold as herbal medicines, bath salts, disinfectants, garden products, etc., they are queasily obviating their moral responsibility for what happens to those who take them because they are selling them in the sure and certain knowledge that the label on the packet is just a device to evade the law. Some of the products are naturally occurring and genuinely herbal. I did an experiment while I was in Cyprus where I read a detective novel in which one of the characters got high smoking nutmeg, a perfectly ordinary domestic product. I put some in a cigarette and smoked it to see if I could smoke something in the kitchen that would have an effect. It was an interesting experiment. Nothing happened — it was extremely disappointing — until I went to sleep when I had the most extraordinary collection of nightmares I had ever had in my life and it did not encourage me to repeat the experiment. That indicates how difficult this issue is, if these substances are mind-changing or hallucinogenic and are available in the kitchen. One cannot start to ban spices. We are in a difficult position.

That is one of the other reasons regulation is better. Instead of attempting to close all head shops, we could place the focus on researching the effects and properties of these legal products which make one high. It is important that we provide funding for research into these products, that there be an oversight committee responsible for their quality and which would also be able to ban anything that contained illicit drugs or products, as in the case of magic mushrooms.

There is a Misuse of Drugs Act which was amended in 1988, 1999, 2006 and 2009. However, the problem is that, although portions of it were changed or updated, the portion relevant to this debate has remained the essentially the same. The problem is that Act classifies illegal drugs by their specific chemical composition and the manufacturers have got very clever. By altering one or two elements, or making small changes to the molecular composition of drugs, they can produce something which is very close to cocaine but with which, legally, they have got round the definition and which is not defined under the law as an illegal drug. Many of the legal drugs involved produce similar results to the illegal ones such as speed, cocaine and cannabis, but they are demonstrably chemically distinct and, therefore, not covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act. By making drugs similar in chemical composition to the illegal ones but not the same, they avoid the ban.

What is the solution? I do not know whether the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, has looked at the American legislation, but there is on the Statute Book in the United States an Act entitled the Controlled Substances Analogues Act. This American law could be helpful in the regulation of head shop products. Essentially, it states any substance, the effect or chemical composition of which is substantially similar to controlled substances may also be considered illegal. I recommend to the Minister that such should be the nub of whatever we introduce here, in other words, any substance, the effect or chemical composition of which is substantially similar is also outlawed. That is part of the solution. It would be a clean, simple and effective way of getting right to the nub of the matter.

In the United Kingdom the Medicines Act 1968 governs the supply and manufacture of medicines. Three categories of medicines are provided for: prescription only medicines, medicines provided by a pharmacist without a prescription and general medicines bought in a store. They have made progress by prosecuting people for the use or possession of certain head shop products on the assertion that they are medicinal in nature and thus misusing or possessing them without a prescription is illegal. This has met with marginal success, as it is only an offence to have prescription medication without a prescription if that medicine is covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act. It will, therefore, be difficult to ban them outright. As a libertarian, I am not sure I am 100% in favour of such a move. However, we can use this information on the American legislation and the United Kingdom precedent to address the problem with simple, clear, direct and effective legislation.

In addition to the resources available to this House, we are lucky to have assistants and researchers provided by the Institute of Public Administration. The information on the American precedent, for example, was garnered for me by Mr. Zach Cohen, my assistant. Getting young people involved in researching a subject such as this is beneficial, both to them and us. I am glad to record my thanks to him for his research work which has suggested something which perhaps the Minister will take up.

Order of Business - 3rd February 2010.

Order of Business - 3rd February 2010.
Senator David Norris: I second Senator O’Toole’s motion. I am all in favour of women in politics, but given the rhetorical question asked about Lehman Sisters, had it been Thatcher’s sisters, the situation might have been considerably worse.


(Interruptions).

Senator David Norris: On the economic area, I am a prophet crying in the wilderness. Why did the people meeting in Davos not take up the situation of Standard & Poor’s and Fitch, which dishonestly rated products, were involved in this whole bundling system, helped to walk us into this position and at whose beck and call we are still because they continue to rate people? The Davos world economic forum should have taken the opportunity to get rid of Standard & Poor’s and Fitch and set up an internationally established independent ratings system, but they did not have the courage to take them on.

I support what Senator Fitzgerald said about the Jack and Jill Children’s Foundation. I was there this morning and it springs from the tragic situation Jonathan Irwin found himself in, but he responded in a very positive way. It was demonstrated by Professor Normand and Dr. Revill from Trinity College that the cost to a family, even if a child is in hospital, is €50,000 and €25 million could be saved by implementing a further programme of the Jack and Jill Children’s Foundation.

I want to raise a matter that I believe to be of great significance in terms of the smart economy. We are always talking about that, yet a proposal appears to be emanating from central sources to disconnect the universities from access to electronic journals. In terms of the sciences, there have already been 4 million hits on this service. In terms of the social sciences, it is 4.5 million, to give a total of 8.5 million hits. This is the lifeblood of research and intellectual inquiry and senior people in the university have suggested to me that this is a lunacy and the equivalent of book burning. I ask the Leader to pass on this strong concern of people on all sides of this House to the Minister of Education and Science. In a situation where the universities are part of the knowledge-based society, they must continue to have uninterrupted access to electronic journals.

Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2009 - Second Stage Debate - 2nd February 2010.

Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2009 - Second Stage Debate - 2nd February 2010.
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State. I also welcome Senator Butler’s contribution because he showed a flexible approach and said although the Bill was very welcome in general, there were certain details which might need to be tweaked. The Minister of State is amenable and I hope he will allow this House to exercise its proper function in assisting him by tweaking the Bill and making some of the alterations to it which many of us feel should be made. The general context is interesting.

Yesterday I took part in a filmed interview with a remarkable Irish artist, Mr. Tom Dunne, about the impact of the Constitution on children and the question of the final ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which, I understand, we have not yet done. It is very important that we do so, if we have not already. Among the issues which arose was the question of the 1916 Proclamation which refers to cherishing all the children of the nation equally. Many people think that statement is in the Constitution, but it is not and we have very little which actually protects the rights of the child.

There were an extraordinary series of reports in The Irish Times today about the abuse of people with intellectual disabilities and the children in that situation, and the extraordinary parallels to which attention was drawn, perhaps inadvertently, by Senator Mullen when he asked “Where have we heard this before?” in reference to moving people around and covering them up. The case study in The Irish Times gives a very fine report on Brendan, who said:

He did dirty things to me. He stuck his private parts up my bum. It was very sore. He did it to the others as well, in the spudhouse. If I wouldn’t do it with him, he said he’d throw me in with the pigs.

This was going on quite recently. It has an extraordinary parallel with the moving, passionate testimony of a former mayor of Clonmel, Michael O’Brien. That is the context. We do not have the greatest record, in terms of the care of our children, in this House and this Bill will go some way towards rectifying that.

I received an extensive and useful brief from Barnardos. It was very helpful in alerting the Oireachtas in 1991 to the need to introduce the guardian ad litem principle in the aftermath of the Maria Colwell case. Like all Senators here, it gave a general welcome to the Bill but it feels, as I do, that it lacks an overarching vision. It is amending legislation, so perhaps one should not be too strict in looking for it. Barnardos welcomes sections 6, 7 and 8 because of the strengthening of efficiency in the protection of children but it says, as I felt, that rather than moving things on in a dramatic way, the Bill cements existing practice and does not build on existing structures to look forward.

I put this in the context of a report in The Irish Times some time ago which examined the impact of the Lisbon treaty and its provisions for fundamental rights and so on. It includes certain provisions concerning children, including their right to secure placement and to have their voices represented and heard. In this area, this Bill needs considerable strengthening. Dr. Ursula Kilkelly of UCC discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights and said it guarantees children the right to protection and care, the right to express their views freely, the right to have them taken into account in proceedings concerning them and the right to have direct contact with their parents, unless it was contrary to their interests.

With regard to the rights to representation and the voice of the child, one of the most glaring gaps in the Bill is the failure to address the point made by Dr. Kilkelly, namely, the right of a child to be heard in regard to the making of a special care order. The Bill is not clear regarding the child’s right to representation and fails to give the child an automatic right to representation, either through the child having party status in the proceedings or the appointment of a guardian ad litem. If it was a criminal case the child would have direct and clear rights to representation. Dr. Kilkelly, in a paper “Children’s Rights in Ireland: Law, Policy and Practice”, says the legislative provision is so riddled with caveats and discretion that it falls significantly short of an effective duty to ensure the child’s views are heard, as required by Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and also fails to guide the courts in the exercise of their extensive direction to hear children in such cases and, if so, by what method. I hope the Minister of State will accept an amendment to clarify that important matter.

There is also the question of the guardian ad litem. Section 26 of the Child Care Act 1991 authorises the court to appoint a guardian ad litem, something of which I am aware because an amendment to the Act was proposed by me and seconded by Senator Brendan Ryan in 1991. I was well briefed by Barnardos at the time. A learned judge, Mr. Justice Conal M. Gibbons, in an article “Childcare in the District Court” quotes a Department of Health and Children manual. It states the crucial importance of the guardian’s role is that it stands at the interface between the conflicting rights and powers of courts, local authorities and the natural and substitute parents of the child; that the guardian has to safeguard the child’s interests to ensure the most positive outcome possible for the child; and that the guardian has to make a judgment between the potentially conflicting demands of the child’s rights, children’s rescue, the autonomy of the family and the duty of the State.

Mr. Justice Conal M. Gibbons, in his gloss on this, said in the United Kingdom the concept of guardian ad litem arose after the Fisher report in the wake of the Maria Colwell case. He said he read some of the debates in the Oireachtas which revealed that there was no provision in the original Bill which became the Child Care Act, even though it had an incredibly long gestation, and that an amendment was proposed by Senators Ryan and Norris — he got the order wrong; my amendment was seconded by Senator Ryan — on Committee Stage in the Seanad, which was accepted by the Government. He said to his mind it was a most important contribution to the legislation and without it the work of the District Court in child care would be much more difficult and children’s interests would not have been as well served as they should.

I am glad the work of the Seanad, my work and that of my colleagues was recognised by the learned judge. However, he also expresses concern about the continuing inadequacy in this matter. For example, although the guardian ad litem is recognised under section 2(c) various matters are left in the hands of the courts, such as the appointment of a solicitor. In addition, the court may direct a solicitor as to the performance of his or her duties, including directions for the appointment of counsel. If a guardian ad litem is appointed — I speak as the person who introduced this amendment — it should be clear that this guardian should be entitled to instruct and direct a solicitor free from any interference, as would any other parties to the proceedings. Restrictions to this would hamper seriously the solicitor’s capacity to represent the best interests of the child.

The next item to be considered is costs, as “reasonably incurred”. Why does the Minister use the word “reasonably”? The Children Acts Advisory Board, which is about to be absorbed into the Minister of State’s Department, has said that legislation proposed by that office would reinforce many current flaws in the system. It stated that the new legislation could saddle guardians ad litem with massive legal bills.

I noted that when the Minister of State spoke about the operations of the court in the same area he did not use the term “reasonable”. He said the expense will be discharged. I ask him to look again at the unnecessary inclusion of the word “reasonably”. It is unnecessary because the 1991 Act already provides for this to be taxed and that, presumably, would eliminate any unreasonable factor. However, it raises doubts and may deter people from applying to be made guardians ad litem.

Section 27 of the 1991 Act is to be amended in respect of the power of the court to give directions to procure a report. The amendment states that any reference in section 27 to the “party” or “parties” will include the guardian ad litem. That reference suggests confinement to the section. The point I make strongly to the Minister of State is that the function of the guardian ad litem should be recognised properly as existing throughout the Bill and this person should be regarded as party to the procedure for the purpose of the Act in general.

Another issue to consider is the HSE and the powers given to that body. For example, there is no requirement that the HSE should apply to the court to dispense with parental consent. These powers appear to exclude a child’s family or guardian ad litem in a way that might disadvantage the child in a serious way. Here again, we come up against what Professor Kilkelly suggested regarding our obligations under the Lisbon treaty. We are required to respect the family unless it is a disadvantage to the child to do so. This Bill, as amended by Government, does not appear to do that, which presents a considerable difficulty.

There is also the matter of language. I had a visit from people involved in the care of young people who are concerned about the word “detention”. They suggested it might appear to criminalise all the children in question. Children themselves speak of securing their “placement”.

Aftercare is an issue. It is clear that the sudden breach and separation of a child from those with whom he or she may have formed a strong psychological and social link can be damaging and it is necessary for them to have aftercare. Section 45 of the Child Care Act 1991 provides that where a child leaves the care of the HSE, that agency “may” provide aftercare. The word should be “shall”. Very many times we have debated in this House the usage of “may” and “shall”. This is a matter of expense but I call on the Minister of State to think of damage to the child and the positive benefits and outcomes that will come from providing aftercare, as repeated studies have shown. There is a necessity to change the terminology from “may” to “shall”.

I urge the Government to accept amendments, or even to introduce its own, in the following areas. First, it should include a statutory right to representation for children to the appointment of a guardian ad litem or a solicitor where the child has competency for such. Second, it should reform the language used in regard to special care orders in order to focus on service provision rather than detention. Third, it should provide for the development of outcomes that focus on best practice models of service provision. Fourth, it should put the provision of aftercare on a statutory footing for all children in the care system.

With these proposed amendments, which I hope the Minister of State will be gracious enough to accept or introduce we will have not merely an amending statute without any overarching vision but will achieve that vision which will enable us to secure the future of the children of our nation in a way that is compatible with our ideals.

Order of Business - 2nd February 2010.

Order of Business - 2nd February 2010.
Senator David Norris: Can the Leader give us any information on the privacy Bill which we have been promised but for which no date has been given? I was one of those who took a very clear stand on the defamation and libel legislation when it was brought before this House. I raise the issue in the context of the Lillis manslaughter case. A person involved in that case, Ms Jean Treacy, was described in unpleasant terms but worse than this, virtually all of the newspapers appeared to be outraged at being baulked by the appropriate action of the police in not permitting them to take photographs of her in getting her into the courtroom with a degree of privacy.


An Cathaoirleach: That matter is still before the courts.


Senator David Norris: It is not.


An Cathaoirleach: It is.


Senator David Norris: I make the point not about the case but about the press coverage of the case. It is a vital point which I need to make at this time. What is the public interest in knowing the names of this person’s parents and siblings, their addresses, occupations and the number of children they have? This is completely wrong. I ask the Press Council to look at this issue. There are some very decent and good people on it, including a former Provost of Trinity College who signed my papers for this House, but I was strongly critical of it. I would like to see some teeth. This is an outrage. There is no justifiable interest.

With regard to human rights, during the week a five year old Nigerian girl suffering from sickle cell anaemia was served with deportation papers from this State. Her consultant took the matter so seriously that she went on the radio and said there was a high probability that the girl concerned would die if she returned to Nigeria because there was no appropriate treatment available to her. She has no spleen. Yet, she has been served with another deportation order. I hope it will not be carried out, but these things frequently are.

I attended the Holocaust memorial and listened very carefully to the words which were said there. I listened to a woman cellist who had been in Auschwitz speaking on a radio programme in which she spoke, in great detail, of the ordinariness of the people. I remember the words of Hannah Arendt about the banality of evil and this kind of bureaucracy.

It is a dreadful deed and I ask the Leader to bring it to the attention of the Minster and appeal not to send this girl back to her death in Nigeria.

Petroleum (Exploration and Extraction) Safety Bill 2010 - Second Stage - 28th January 2010

Petroleum (Exploration and Extraction) Safety Bill 2010 - Second Stage - 28th January 2010
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister. I will follow Senator Ó Brolcháin — it is what I had intended to say, but I will say it again, perhaps more vigorously — in that the Bill is a form of reaction. We should be grateful to Shell to Sea, without which we would not have this Bill. Shell Oil did not appear to take locals’ concerns on board and was either blissfully unaware or uncaring of the safety issues. Shell Oil has a disastrous record worldwide. One need only instance Nigeria and the murky background of the environmental disaster caused by Shell Oil among others, the political involvement with unsavoury regimes and its clear implication in the death of Ken Saro-Wiwa. It has been forced to pay millions of dollars in reparations by a court in the US on foot of those matters. As such, I will first say that we should be careful in dealing with Shell Oil, given its nasty record and the history mentioned by Senator O’Toole. I applaud him and Senator O’Malley for going to see the situation on the ground, which makes their contributions all the more interesting.

The Bill has only been introduced because of the activities of the Shell to Sea campaign. I deprecate the fact that when the matter was raised in the House, a number of speakers used the opportunity to issue calumnies against Shell to Sea and those involved in it. We were told they were paramilitaries and smeared them with an IRA bully boy image. Doing so was grossly unfair. When I protested and investigated the comments made in the House, I found there was not a tissue of truth in them. One is not responsible if people with certain backgrounds join public protests. I do not doubt that those centrally involved were properly motivated and concerned about health and safety issues. Regrettably, they came under sustained attack by the agents of Shell Oil in a brutal fashion, supported by the agencies of the State. I have watched videos of worrying Garda behaviour. It is appalling that the agencies of the State, especially the police force, should be used as instruments in support of a multinational corporation with an unsavoury record. I am not alone in this belief; I am not just a crank.

The Minister will remember the incident involving Willie Corduff, whose peaceful work has been recognised internationally. He has been awarded a number of prizes. At the time, a figure we all respect, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, issued a statement on the high-pressure pipeline and Mr. Corduff’s response. I will put a part of it on the record. He stated:

This is opposed by local people, particularly in the parish of Kilcommon where the project is based, because of fears for their health and safety (including possible contamination of their drinking water). A compromise proposed by three members of the Catholic clergy and supported by a majority of people in the locality, would have seen an onshore processing plant located in an unpopulated area away from the community’s water supply, eliminating the need for high pressure pipelines.

The pipe’s pressure is beyond anything that has ever been passed close to domestic habitation anywhere in the world. There are on record a number of disastrous explosions at significantly lesser pressures. These are matters of fact, so people have a right to be concerned. Archbishop Tutu also stated:

This proposed compromise has, unfortunately, been rejected by Shell and the Irish government. The strength of feeling in the community regarding this issue is illustrated by the fact that five people, who became known as the Rossport 5, spent 94 days in prison for their non-violent opposition to the project going ahead in its current form. Mr. Corduff, one of the Rossport 5, went on to win the prestigious Goldman international environmental award, known as the Green Nobel Prize, in 2005.

1 o’clock
We need to take this type of issue seriously. The media have not distinguished themselves in this regard. The Minister may have watched a documentary within the last year, broadcast on RTE television, which was violently biased and clearly skewed with any kind of impartiality totally abandoned in the editorial process. I read the reviews in the newspapers, one in particular in the Irish Independent, with great interest. The television reviewer said that this was one of the most biased programmes he had ever seen in his life and he thanked God for it because he indicated the Shell to Sea group was asking for a belt on the nose. That was the attitude of a television critic who acknowledged bias and said that the lack of impartial information in the debate was a good thing. That is a corruption of public discourse which we really should deprecate. We should not co-operate with it in this House.

The Minister is in a difficult position because he has come in towards the end of the process. The matter was muddied long before he started to deal with it as Ireland’s position was substantially weakened historically by a Fianna Fáil Government in which Mr. Raphael Burke played a significant role in negotiating deals. Currently, a generous tax rate of 25% — low by international standards — kicks in when the company’s exploration and development costs and estimated costs of closing down its operation are paid off.

That raises questions about the argument that we cannot afford to do this ourselves. We are doing it ourselves; we are paying for the process because we do not get a red cent in tax until every item of expenditure is paid off to Shell. We are paying that company for the privilege of developing this, although I acknowledge there are difficulties in selling licences in this market. It will get easier as resources diminish and technology improves.

In any case, there are no obligations regarding the provision of gas to Ireland. There is nothing in this agreement that obliges Shell and the other companies to sell the gas to us. If they do, it will be sold at the current rate. In that case, we could buy it from anywhere. What exactly are we getting out of this except some small degree of ease of access? That worries me. We may get some tax after the first half-life of the field is exhausted. That is about all the benefit we get.

This represents a change from the Irish Government’s strategy for energy extraction in 1975. It held that the State would have a 50% shareholding in any oil or gas discovery and an extracting company would have to pay royalties of at least 8%, as well as tax at a rate of 50%. The shift was made under the ministerial responsibility of Mr. Burke and the people are entitled to an examination of that deal, how it was done and why the people were so significantly disadvantaged. I know I may be seen as an old-fashioned socialist and I am one. The resources of this country belong to the people. In the current financial crisis, we can see how much of the necessary infrastructure, developments and support of education and health could be met from these resources, if only we had made a better deal. We have made a very bad deal and are just giving our gas away.

We can consider other countries. Bolivia nationalised its structures, although perhaps nationalisation might be medicine that is too strong. I am not an unequivocal admirer of Mr. Vladimir Putin but on foot of a series of infringements — in planning, environmental and civil rights laws — Mr. Putin renegotiated with the companies and got a much more favourable deal. Shell were glad to get that deal. We could renegotiate our deal.

I mentioned infringements. These include spying on and filming people as well as breaking civil rights. The Minister is a member of the Green Party. What about the way the company has used nets to stop the nesting of birds in an area that was under environmental protection by EU law? The list of categories of Shell’s sins is on the public record and they give us the reasons to renegotiate the deal. I would like to see that done.

We should be thankful for the protests by the Rossport five and Shell to Sea, whom I honour. A judge tried to have one woman psychiatrically examined because she was upset. It is because of these people that we are here today.