Finance Bill - Second Stage Debate - 24th March 2010

Finance Bill – Second Stage Debate – 24th March 2010
Senator David Norris: I am very flattered to be confused with that brilliant demagogue. I welcome the Minister of State and I applaud the fact the Minister for Finance attended the Chamber for the early part of the debate. He is a very busy man under much pressure and strain from various sources and it shows respect for the dignity of the House that he attended. I am sure the Minister of State and her advisers will take on board the salient points extracted from this debate and draw them to the attention of the Minister. I welcome the ongoing investigations into Anglo Irish Bank. I do not welcome arrests in particular because one always feels this is a regrettable and negative necessity. People need to see these figures held accountable and I welcome that this has happened.
We are lucky to have Deputy Brian Lenihan as Minister for Finance. He is an outstanding man and a man of courage, clarity and direction. We need a certain amount of firmness. I do not always agree with him but I hope he is right. Some elements may have misinterpreted certain signals. I hope NAMA works but the jury is still out. The Government took certain clear measures in the budget and, painful as they were, they have been welcomed internationally. They have led to an increased respect, in contrast with other European countries. Among countries with budgetary difficulties, Ireland is held up as an example of one that has dealt with this difficult situation with firmness and clarity. However, insufficient attention has been paid to the area of education. The Minister rightly repeats the cliché that our educated young people are one of our greatest assets. This Government should take seriously the real necessity to continue to invest in education in this difficult time. I look forward to a demonstration of the Government’s commitment.
The Minister indicated certain measures are intended to support enterprise. This is what we need. This House has played its role. Last week, a group of us on this side of the House, with support from the Government side, amended the Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to provide an opportunity to create 1,000 jobs in Waterford. That was a good day’s work and I am glad I took part in it. This is what we need. We should also examine start-up companies and encourage initiatives. The Minister indicated this is part of the Government’s policy, extending the scheme of tax exemption on the income and gains from new start-up companies over the first three years of operation. I am on this side of the House but I am not in opposition. I am an Independent Member and I am prepared to support the Government when it does things right.
It is forward-looking to consider Islamic finance, which is a comparatively recent phenomenon in European economic approaches. We must see if we can corner some of the market and this development is to be welcomed. There is a great amount of money floating around and Islamic countries have their own attitude to how usury must be handled, but it is appropriate to examine this.
I am glad some of the tax loopholes are now subject to critical scrutiny by the Revenue Commissioners. The Revenue Commissioners also have increased powers to close some of these schemes which may have been appropriate in the perceived boom but are certainly not appropriate now because they give advantage to the already wealthy classes. The Minister has continued to spell out the policy on carbon tax, owing to the influence of the Green Party. I note the difference between ourselves and the French because Mr. Sarkozy is in the process of backing down under pressure on this issue. It is good the Government has taken this on board.
I regret the influence of the European Union and its legislation means VAT is to be applied to local authorities. This is a form of idiocy. Local authorities are already starved of income and here we are penalising them further. It is a daft recycling process because they must pay money to the central Exchequer and then waste time trying to prise it back from the Exchequer. It does no one any good and is a form of EU lunacy. I am a strong supporter of the EU but when I see daftness, I call it by its correct name.
Thank God mortgage interest relief is being abolished on a phased basis. This must be monitored and should not be set in stone. We see the difficulty of people and the desperate pain inflicted on those who have mortgages at a time of falling property values, falling income and loss of jobs. We must be very sensitive and careful in these areas.
I do not think the Minister has done anything about the difficult position of the restaurant industry. I would like to see a reduction in taxes imposed there. Many restaurants are struggling and a number of them are closing. This is an important aspect of our tourism industry. The Minister referred to charity but I regret such a battle was fought and lost in this Chamber to have human rights provisions included in charitable definitions. This was a grave mistake.
I am delighted there is a windfall tax but this is closing the door after the horse has bolted and has certain negative consequences. In this period of retrenchment and difficulty, where everyone is feeling pain, it is difficult to argue for specific cases but I propose to do so. The Minister of State is aware that this matter was raised in the other House and received considerable support. I refer to Westport House, where Jeremy Altamont, a descendant of the great pirate queen, Gráinne Ní Mháille, is attempting to save that magnificent property. It is one of only seven historic properties, is important to our tourism industry and is an asset to the local community. It is threatened because they engaged in an attempt to realise some of the asset value of the estate to reinvest it to maximise the tourism potential.
The windfall tax was implemented to penalise speculators but in this instance it will penalise heritage properties. That is a problem. I understand my colleague, Senator Twomey, has put down an amendment on this issue. I have put down the same amendment and therefore we will be supporting each other. I ask the Government to examine it.
Westport Town Council and Mayo County Council asked the Westport House estate to draw up an overall master plan of the entire estate. They started this process in 2006 and the zoning is expected to take place in June or July of this year. The reason for that was that the town council wanted to complete its own development before it moved on to examine Westport but it means they are caught on the cusp of this date.
Lord Altamont took out a serious mortgage to finance the undertakings of this plan. He engaged a series of professionals in every appropriate skills area. They have worked in close co-operation with town county planners, the Heritage Council, forestry and all relevant bodies. The date is what will crucify them. They have given their lifeblood to salvage and restore this estate while creating valuable employment. They attract 50,000 visitors to the house each year and 10,000 visitors who stay in local caravan and camping parks. The consequences of this windfall tax will be catastrophic for the family and the cultural heritage of this country.
There are a number of ways of approaching this matter. It can be dealt with by special exemption. Nobody can say this has not been done because I know it has. I found a case where a Fianna Fáil Government did it in the interests of a Mr. Ken Rohan when he was restoring Charleville in County Wicklow, a magnificent property. We might not have it today otherwise. He is a wealthy man but it was done to save the house. There are arguments pro and con but the Government should at least examine it or else face the fact that we may lose something important and valuable to our life.
There is another way to do it. The Minister, Deputy Hanafin, said in the other House this would impact on no less than 18 local draft development plans and 50 local area plans but that is on the basis of draft development plans published prior to 30 October 2009 and rezonings made after that date. If the Government were to insert a long stop date on the adoption of the draft development plan to either the commencement of the Finance Act or 31 December 2010, that would reduce substantially the number of draft development plans that would be affected by the amendment. That is another way of doing it.
I say that in light of the fact that there is a democratic deficit in this section. As the Minister is aware, it was not discussed in the other House. It was one of those sections caught by a guillotine. The House did not get an opportunity to debate it in any shape or form.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Norris, as you are dealing with my county I have given you some latitude.
Senator David Norris: I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. I am drawing my remarks to a conclusion.
I would like to point out that, unusually, this matter received support not just from Fine Gael. There was some degree of support from Labour and Sinn Féin also supported Westport House. Perhaps it was because of the Pirate Queen.
I am glad some attempt has been made to deal with the position in Shannon because it has been hit by the difficulties in Shannon Airport. I predicted that. I knew it would happen, regardless of whether we did the dirty thing and allowed the rendition flights through Shannon. It was going to happen anyway but I welcome the amendmentof section 372A W relating to the mid-Shannon corridor tourism infrastructure.
My final point, and I am sorry to end on a negative note, is that I do not approve of the announcement the Government made on budget day concerning reducing the rates of tax on alcohol products. That is a disastrous mistake. It is weakening to the country. We have a serious alcohol problem and we should address it instead of reducing the rate. I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for his indulgence.
Senator Ann Ormonde: I would like to share time. I will take five minutes and leave the remainder to my colleague, Senator Mooney.

Order of Business - 24th March 2010

Order of Business - 24th March 2010
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Cabinet reshuffle. I am glad Deputy Connick who was excellent on “Operation Transformation” has been appointed Minister of State. More important from my point of view as one of the people who campaigned against interference in so many of the organisations which support vulnerable people in society — I particularly deplore the manner in which the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform chose to treat equality issues — is the transfer of responsibility for equality issues to Deputy Pat Carey, a fine, honourable and decent man. I am glad the issue of equality has been separated from the Department of Justice and Law Reform.


Senator Joe O’Toole: Hear, hear.


Senator David Norris: I believe the Green Party, which supported us in this, has achieved a success in terms of our fight in this regard with Government. I welcome this development and I am, as a Member of this side of the House, happy to say that.

I am interested in human rights as are many Members. There are fine contributors on this issue on both sides of the House. For that reason, I am sure Members will be as interested as I in seeking a debate in which to include the very significant development concerning Google and its battle with the Chinese authorities.


Senator Joe O’Toole: Hear, hear.


Senator David Norris: It has shown great courage removing its operation from China. I hope it will be successful in transferring to Hong Kong. The significant issues in this regard are Tibet, human rights, Tiananmen Square and the Falun Gong. I learned yesterday in a meeting with Senator O’Toole and Dongxue Dai that the process of murdering people to harvest their organs is probably continuing within China, an issue we need to address.

I agree 100% with Senator O’Toole’ s remarks with regard to the situation at Anglo Irish Bank. I honour Senator O’Toole for saying that he was not looking for a head on a plate and was not interested in names but wanted to know the process by which these decisions were arrived at. I heard part of the interview with Alan Dukes, namely, that there had been a 7.5% cull of staff at Anglo Irish Bank. People will ask about promotions taking place when there is a ban on recruitment.


An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Does Senator Norris have a question for the Leader?


Senator David Norris: I am looking for a debate on this issue and in particular on Anglo Irish Bank. I will say something on the matter today during the debate on the Finance Bill. However, this is one of the banks that were one of the principal causes of the financial disaster. People who are on the streets, have lost their homes, are unemployed and affected by the Passport Office strike and the chaos that reigns——


An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Those issues can be raised during the debate.


Senator David Norris: ——look at people in Anglo Irish Bank and ask whether they should be rewarded. I do not believe so.

Order of Business - 23rd March 2010

Order of Business - 23rd March 2010
Senator David Norris: The prospect of people queueing in very difficult circumstances, sometimes tragic family situations, and being treated by all accounts from live radio broadcasts in a manner that could only be described as completely bolshie, is appalling. It shows a contempt for the public. They are very foolish because they need the public on their side and their action is not actually exerting any influence on Government but is making a lot of people very miserable. This is not just the case in the Passport Office. I ask the Leader to raise a matter with the Minister.

Not long ago, a number of us raised the matter of the Jack and Jill Foundation on foot of a very powerful briefing we received from Mr. Jonathan Irwin and other executives. They made a very strong case for increased State support. The foundation’s support has been cut back by nearly €40,000, a total of 6.5%, on a value for money basis, despite the fact there has been an independent professional report showing the foundation is excellent, unmatchable and unrivalled value for money. I wrote an urgent letter to the Minister and I received this reply.

Dear David,

I wish to thank you for your recent letter on behalf of Mr. Jonathan Irwin...I regret to inform you that due to industrial action the Minister is not in a position to provide a substantive response to your correspondence. If this matter continues to be of concern to you, however, the Minister invites you to raise it with her again in due course.

This is outrageous, in my opinion. This is an urgent matter. The Minister is incapable of dealing with it because of industrial action. In other words the Government has been paralysed. In urgent situations this should not be allowed, there must be a degree of flexibility. I know people were reported as working to rule and being on a go-slow. I wish to God I could go on a go-slow, I certainly do not seem to be able to in this House or in my office, where I am chained to my desk.

Order of Business - 11th March 2010

Order of Business - 11th March 2010
Senator David Norris: I support colleagues who asked for a debate on Tallaght Hospital. I was interested in the fact that many commentators used phrases like “managerial inattention” and “managerial dysfunction”. We owe a debt of gratitude to Professor Tom O’Dowd. It is extraordinary that, when he wrote a letter pointing out that 30,000 letters had gone unanswered, his letter also remained unanswered. Anyone involved in a Seanad campaign well knows the bulk of 30,000 filled envelopes.


Senator Donie Cassidy: Especially the Independent Senators.


Senator David Norris: How could it have escaped anyone’s attention? Pile on top of this 70,000 X-rays and even I would have noticed it.

It must be pointed out that Tallaght Hospital has been grossly underfunded since its commencement, as stated in the House repeatedly and supported on all sides. Part of this problem is due to the fact that the bureaucracy did not want the Adelaide and Meath Hospital and the National Children’s Hospital to survive. Tallaght is a fine hospital and I regret what has occurred.

I wish to discuss the activities of the Garda National Immigration Bureau, GNIB, and the Irish National Immigration Service, INIS, as I am concerned about a particular point. Some 17,000 people must have permits issued to them under the IBCO 5 scheme. Last December, the INIS, a part of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, advertised a procedure for this where people turned up with their papers and a fee. The GNIB told them that it could not give them their certificates until they were approved by the INIS. People were stopped from getting their permits, as a result of which people lost their jobs. An emergency scheme was then introduced and people were each charged €150 for a three-month emergency visa. The proper visas have now started to be issued, but people are being charged another €150. This is double jeopardy and double charging. It is an unfair attack on the weakest people. In the Lower House, the Minister accepted that people would be charged €150 for three-month visas and a further €150 for 12-month visas having completely botched the scheme, made people lose their jobs and created gaps in their immigration records, which may prejudice their attempts for asylum. The authorities should be on their knees apologising, not extracting a further €150 from vulnerable people.

Compulsory Retirement from the Irish Army of Lieutenant Dónal de Róiste: Motion - 10th March 2010

Compulsory Retirement from the Irish Army of Lieutenant Dónal de Róiste: Motion - 10th March 2010
Senator David Norris: I congratulate Senator Harris on raising this matter and, particularly, on scoring a notable triumph. Senator Boyle raised this issue in the Lower House, as I did several times in this House, but neither of us was successful in having the case re-opened. Senator Harris, through his motion and ably supported by Senator O’Toole, has handled the issue in such a particular manner that he has been successful.

We should put on the record our recognition of the important role played by the Taoiseach and the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Carey. This matter could easily have been brushed under the carpet again. These steps took moral and political courage and decency on the part of the Government. I am pleased that Senator Harris has accepted the Government’s amendment, which is a major step forward. Securing the re-opening of a case that was, in my opinion and that of many others, a travesty of justice is a considerable triumph for Seanad Éireann. The first note must be a positive one, a note of congratulations to Mr. de Róiste.

I compliment Senator Harris on his openness about his marginal involvement in the 1997 presidential election. He did no wrong. When he was contacted by a newspaper, he told the truth. I have no doubt that it was unpalatable to the de Róiste campaign and that sinister forces were around, but they did not include Senator Harris. Rather, they were the major parties, which behaved in a disgraceful way. They hauled this alleged skeleton out of the closest and dangled it in front of the hungry media. I agree with Senator Buttimer that Adi Roche is a remarkable, fine, talented and courageous woman. The media fomented division in the Chernobyl Children’s Project. I do not want to strike too much of a negative note because this is a positive evening, but the 1997 events are remembered and must not be allowed to sully any future presidential elections. The motion and its amendment are framed in a careful, well crafted and judicious way, as were the speeches of Senators Kieran Phelan and Boyle.

The facts are stark. Former Lieutenant de Róiste committed no crime and was neither arraigned on nor accused of a crime. He was denied access to legal representation and the possibility of representing himself. He was denied access to documentation that would have been helpful. Each of his human rights was trampled. One cannot argue with the Army, which had the right at the time to do what it did. What it did was morally wrong, but it was within its legal rights.

It has been stated by both sides of the House that this situation could not recur, but I am sorry to tell them that they are wrong. This situation, described so eloquently by Senator Harris as Kafkaesque, is occurring repeatedly on the instructions of Ministers against asylum seekers, not Irish citizens. I have raised a number of cases in which people applied for asylum. The principle is exactly the same. They were denied, but they were told that they could appeal. To do so, they were told that they would need to include the reasons for the original refusal. When they asked to be told the grounds for their refusals, they were denied those reasons. It is the same thing, in that they were tried and convicted behind closed doors on rumour, gossip and scandal.

Each of us could be convicted in this way. As the Minister of State indicated, Senators Harris and O’Toole mix in bohemian company. They could have been held guilty by attainder. All of us could. God knows, I was never a singer of republican ballads or a fan of the Wolfe Tones, but I knew Ronny Drew well and I occasionally attended O’Donoghue’s. Among my close personal friends were two extraordinarily talented artists who were very much on the fringes of the most extreme republican movements, including Saor Éire. I disagreed with and disdained their views, but they were valued friends and fascinating people. Could I have been held guilty of the same offence? Perhaps I was foolish to mix in bohemian circles, but it is what literary people did in those days.

It was unfair and wrong that former Lieutenant de Róiste was found against in that manner and summarily cashiered out of the Army. The only parallel I can think of would be the unfrocking of a priest, which occurs rarely despite the possibility of there being many times in which it should happen. As a result, he was not invited to reunions of the mess. He told me this because I have been involved in the case and have discussed it with Senator Harris in recent months. Former Lieutenant de Róiste was frozen out. Tragically, his family was divided and his relationship with close family members fractured. It must have been appallingly painful for him to become a negative element in his sister’s presidential campaign.

I share the admiration for Mr. Don Mullen, who wrote a good book on the Dublin-Monaghan bombings.

A point has already been touched upon, but I wish to emphasise it. The provisions in the Government’s amendment are fair and reasonable. The amendment calls for “the Judge Advocate General to select a nominee to carry out a review of the documentation on Mr. de Róiste’s file to determine”. This sounds like an academic, legalistic exercise, which is appropriate, but Senators Harris and O’Toole have superbly pointed out that there is a human element. Shocked by his dismissal from the Army, former Lieutenant de Róiste entered an unusual mental state and was not capable of dealing with the situation. He is a highly artistic and unusual person, perhaps an inappropriate person to have chosen a career in the Army. It is possible that, unless the strong suggestion that former Lieutenant de Róiste be interviewed is included in the brief of the Judge Advocate General’s nominee, the process could remain at the level of an arid and futile legal exercise. I hope not, as I am sure that whoever is chosen will be a person of eminence and intelligence, but will the Minister of State ensure that this distinguished person will be requested to include a direct interview with former Lieutenant de Róiste among his or her activities so he or she can get a feeling for Mr. de Róiste’s personality and the case’s background?

Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage - 10th March 2010

Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage - 10th March 2010
Senator David Norris: May I say a couple of words on this?


An Cathaoirleach: We are on section 1, amendment No. 15, to which Nos. 17, 41 and 73 are related.


Senator David Norris: Yes; I understand that. I lend my support to these amendments, which are important, particularly from the point of view of management committees. I have raised this on numerous occasions in the House and received little response, so I am glad the Government is addressing it. Has the Minister considered - although from a glance through the amendments, I think he has done so - that an unscrupulous developer can retain one unit and thereby control the management committee to the disadvantage of the residents? I hope this is addressed, although it seems it might be. I have come across this on numerous occasions. The tactic is often used, as I have said before, to allow the developer and his family to control the management committee in such a way as to create financial advantage for themselves - for example, by hiring other family members to do cleaning, servicing and so on. This is grossly and utterly wrong.

The other matter to which I draw the Minister’s attention is perhaps more for the local authorities than the Government, but there may be a Government angle. A fine job of refurbishment has been done at what was Fatima Mansions but is now Herberton. There is a management company. I know people who have bought flats there, most of them nurses in St. James’s Hospital, under the affordable housing scheme.


An Cathaoirleach: On the amendment, Senator.


Senator David Norris: This is directly relevant to the amendment, because it is about management committees - at least, I hope it is.


An Cathaoirleach: Does the Senator think so?


Senator David Norris: This series of amendments deals with such things as apportionment of costs and the units in a development.

For example, some management committees have raised management fees considerably and suddenly. People were given indications of a fee of €1,500 per year but were then asked for a deposit of €1,500 as well as the first year’s fee. This is ridiculous. They are paying twice. Then the fee was raised to €2,000, which is outrageous. I hope the Minister will bring this to the attention of his contacts. Affordable housing in this city is not affordable any more. I am happy to support these amendments in as far as they address problems associated with multi-unit developments and the issues with management committees which have caused much concern to citizens.


Deputy Dermot Ahern: Senator Norris referred to sections 3 and 4 which deal with the issue of incompletion and the obligation to transfer ownership on completion, and, to a lesser extent, section 14, which deals with the apportionment of service charges. I empathise with the points he has made. These amendments deal with the extension of the remit of this legislation to mixed-use developments, which contain commercial and residential units within one development, as well as the practice that has been mentioned by Members whereby developers, starting a few years ago, have built traditional housing estates and then imposed, without any justification, management companies and the accompanying charges. There is general acceptance of the amendments.


Senator David Norris: Will the Minister consider the situation for apartment blocks specifically. Some further attention may be required because there are anomalies that are causing much unhappiness.


An Cathaoirleach: We will come to that later.


Amendment agreed to.

Order of Business - 10th March 2010

Order of Business - 10th March 2010
Senator David Norris: I had agreed to second Senator O’Toole’s motion but I have been positively anticipated by Senator Coffey. Notwithstanding that, I will make a few points on the issue. The decision in committee was taken unanimously and on a cross-party basis. This is one of the few instances in which the House can have an impact. The Seanad, acting alone, can effect the withdrawal of the proposal. By voting it down, the Government side is helping to create what has been described as a dysfunctional democracy. I ask the Leader, as a matter of grave urgency, to take up with the Data Protection Commissioner the fact the United States has introduced a new digital millennium copyright Act. Under this YouTube offers an automated system whereby a third party can post a notice requesting another party’s site to be removed. In order to negate this, the targeted person must supply his or her personal details to the third party, who will often use a fake name. This facility has been used already to stalk young women. In the United Kingdom it has been used to target a man, libel him criminally, label him a paedophile and subject him to attack. It is only a matter of time before a tragedy occurs and the issue must be examined.

Last week Senator Hannigan paid a generous tribute to Michael Foot, the great leader of the British Labour Party. However, one aspect of the man that has not really been put forward to the degree it should is his remarkable connection with Ireland. In 1980, Victor Griffin, then Dean of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, invited him to deliver the first Swift lecture. Michael Foot was a great authority on Swift and he spoke unscripted - I was there. He gave the most electrifying and marvellous address on Swift, the challenge the writer posed to church, state and politicians, his horror of war and cruelty and conquests and crimes committed in the name of Christ or patriotism. He spoke of how Swift prophesied that if the new money class - the bankers - should rule the community, there would be a danger of unrestricted capitalism, especially to the poor-----


An Cathaoirleach: Senator, please.


Senator David Norris: Today that is more relevant than ever. I wish to emphasise this

Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010: Committee Stage (Resumed) - 9th March 2010

Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010: Committee Stage (Resumed) 9th March 2010

Senator David Norris: I also welcome the Minister. The Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, and his advisers did a good job when the Minister, Deputy Ryan, was not here the last day, but it is particularly important that the Minister with direct authority in this area be here.

The Minister is highly intelligent and diligent so I will not rehearse all the arguments. I imagine that either his advisers have acquainted him with the arguments made or he has read the debate. It was quite technical and some of us spoke at considerable length. The point was generally agreed by both the Minister and his advisers and by all parties in the House - which is important - and there was a general consensus that we had won the argument. The only obstacle was a technical difficulty. As Senator Walsh has said, we wish to work together in this regard.

The arguments revolve around two issues, the first of which is Irish jobs. It is important we maximise the capacity to produce employment. The other is the impact on the environment, both domestically and, to a smaller extent, in countries such as Brazil. I will not go over the arguments again. I was obliged to leave the House to take a telephone call so I hope I am not reiterating too much of what has already been said.

I accept the good will of the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, and of course the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan. In what I say I am not implying any malign intention, but it does appear that some of the statements, especially in light of the briefings we have subsequently received, may have unintentionally misled. For example, the amendments are in fact completely consistent with trade guidelines for the EU. They do not unduly or unfairly restrict imports. The provisions have been proven to be WTO compliant, as evidenced by their implementation in other EU member states. During the previous debate I and other colleagues read a list of the other European states, of which there are at least eight, that already have such provisions. I also put on the record the fact that an international committee was established with representation not only from the United States and the EU countries, but also from Brazil itself, and it was positive in this regard. I do not see where there could be any objection. Germany and France import Brazilian ethanol, but not for fuel use. In 2009 Germany imported 4 million litres of undenatured ethanol from Brazil.

The statement that suggested there might be a price hike at the petrol pump that would be unwelcome to Irish consumers could also be held to mislead. This must be put into context. Bioethanol will constitute a 5% or 10% petroleum blend - E5 or E10 - and the difference between the existing proposed tariffs is 9 cent per litre. Thus, the equivalent price increase, if any, to the consumer would be 0.45 cent and 0.9 cent per litre for E5 and E10, respectively. There is no evidence from any other European markets, following the introduction of exactly the same kind of tariff legislation, that there was any jump in price at the petrol pump. This argument needs to be ruled out. I am not suggesting any malign intention, but I suggest there is likely to be no impact whatever at the pump. The main driver of petrol prices at the pump, in any case, is the international oil price.

The notification to the European Commission of the change in the technical regulation should be just a formality for the reasons I have mentioned. There is a suggestion that this might be a diversionary tactic by the Minister’s Department. I am sure this is not true. Everybody in this country is seeking the creation of jobs. I would like to ask specifically, if my colleagues have not already asked, whether the notification has already been submitted, because there are lead times involved. In addition, there are a whole series of arguments about the United Kingdom not having adopted this measure, but these are also unrealistic and I am sure the companies involved have already made this clear to the Minister.

I believe we won the argument on Second Stage and there was general agreement on the issue. The Minister signified he would consider the meaning of the amendments, but at a later stage. Senator O’Toole has dealt with the question of whether it would be technically possible or appropriate to introduce it on Second Stage in the Dáil. My colleagues and I have worked hard on this and it would be appropriate for this to be done in the Seanad, which is possible.

I know there must be formal notification. The problem is the regulation must rest with the European Commission for three months and other member states have an opportunity to object, which might cause another three-month delay. The process has already been delayed from 1 January to 1 July, which is approximately six months, and a further delay would have serious consequences in possible loss of employment and a possible closure of the firm, which has a capacity to deliver. That would be a disaster. The excise relief is running out under the mineral oil tax, MOT, scheme II. The bio-fuel obligation must be put in place no later than 1 July 2010, as indicated by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources already.

I am serious about this and will table an amendment on Report Stage which might resolve the issue. I would be very happy for the Minister to introduce it. Very often in legislation passed by this and the other House, there is the equivalent of the unenumerated constitutional rights. We have a broad outline of the Bill and we also have reserve powers of the Minister to introduce further measures by regulation. That means the Bill can be passed but we make clear that the power to make regulations is implicit in the Bill, setting out certain quality standards that might be applied. Once the Bill is passed, we should draw up a statutory instrument setting out the requisite standards and present that to the European Commission under Directive 98/34/EC. That would allow the changes to made, as requested, on Committee Stage and also allow the Bill to proceed as planned.

The Minister should respond directly to that technical measure. Will he accept that kind of amendment or will he introduce it on Report Stage? This meets both requirements of the European Commission and the urgent necessity for the Bill to be passed in a form that makes the necessary changes allowing for the development of this important industry. It would also allow the possibility of perhaps 1,000 jobs in what is an economic blackspot.

There are two questions for the Minister. What is the current state of play with regard to notification and has this already been submitted? The Minister has already agreed that the arguments in the Seanad have prevailed so will he accept an amendment in the Seanad on Report Stage which will allow the Minister to make the appropriate changes by regulation and the creation of statutory instrument?

Senator David Norris: I welcome what the Minister said. He has done exactly what Members on all sides have urged him to do. This is a very good day for Seanad Éireann. I also welcome the fact that he has given a commitment to introduce on Report Stage that for which those on all sides have argued, namely, a provision relating to dealing with this matter by way of statutory instrument. That is an extremely important development.

The Minister referred to our extraordinary technical knowledge. I am not sure I could claim any such knowledge. However, one thing I am good at is taking a brief on the hoof. We were provided with clear and specific briefs by various interests, particularly those representing the industry. I thank them for this because, with the help of the briefs to which I refer, it was possible to master a number of highly technical issues, as well as the broad sweep of ideas.

The fact that Seanad Éireann has acted in a united capacity and has not been antagonistic or imputed false motives to the Department, the officials or the Minister has been of assistance. We have behaved in a constructive way and our business has been accomplished as envisaged under the Constitution. The Seanad is normally seen as a venue where constructive amendments which will improve Government legislation can be mooted. I am glad we were able to convince the Minister as to the veracity of our arguments. It is possible, even likely, that he already had this change of mind. At least, he was faced by a united front within the Seanad urging him to introduce the change. If its introduction was not always so firmly on his agenda - which is always possible - then the Seanad has done a good day’s work.

Members on all sides spoke passionately and convincingly in respect of the amendments. I welcome the fact that the general thrust of the amendments tabled in my name and that of Senator O’Reilly, in respect of which he and Senators John Paul Phelan and Walsh argued, has been accepted. Senators John Paul Phelan and Walsh have a particular interest in this matter because it relates to their home base. I do not believe this was an electoral gambit or that the Senators were merely doing this on behalf of the constituency in which they live. This is a matter of passionate concern for all people, not just Members of both Houses. To be able to do something to provide jobs at a time when the position on employment is so difficult is extremely important.

I was somewhat bemused by Senator Walsh’s reference to presidential elections. I am not sure if he was referring to the election of the president of some farming organisation or a somewhat more elevated office. I do not see what we are discussing as having any great relevance to presidential elections, although we may be rewarded for having done a good day’s work.

Order of Business - 9th March 2010

Order of Business - 9th March 2010
Senator David Norris: I too received the letter Senator Fitzgerald received from the woman in Letterkenny. I replied to it straight away because of the note of despair in it. I am not surprised that people feel like this on a day, for example, when one of the main banks reported losses of €3 billion but rewarded its directors, apparently proportionately, with bonuses of €3 million. One person honourably refused to take it.

With regard to the controversy regarding Good Friday, I am sorry this has happened and I call into question the decision of the rugby authorities. It is outrageous to schedule such a match on Good Friday. I am old enough to remember when Sunday was a day that was reverenced in this country. Now it is the largest commercial day because we are lackeys of the British multinationals.


Senators: Hear, hear.


Senator David Norris: That is not just a religious position, although I take a religious position. It is good for people to have a day of rest. Sunday in Dublin was a beautiful day and I know that many employees of stores in Dublin and across the country are forced to work. I certainly do not join this populist rush to say we should open pubs and desecrate Good Friday. I have one other point. I am very concerned at receiving material from the Ombudsman, Ms Emily O’Reilly, indicating that she asked that her special report on the lost at sea scheme be referred to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That was defeated in a Dáil vote along party lines, which was an astonishing subversion of democracy. I am not prejudging the issue, although it seems that certain applicants did not get the compensation that many feel they should. That issue is not for us to decide but what concerns us is the decision not to refer the report to the appropriate committee for decision.


An Cathaoirleach: That is a matter for the Dáil.


Senator David Norris: Senator O’Toole pointed out in the discussion held in the Seanad that there was no finality and there was a gap in the legislation. I express my concern on the matter.

Order of Business - 3rd March 2010

Order of Business - 3rd March 2010.
Senator David Norris: I support Senator O’Toole’s comments about the BAI. It is extraordinary that it should bring forward a proposal for a 30% increase on its 2009 budget. Many small radio stations are on the margins and it is peculiar that the body charged with the guardianship of their interests should place them at risk. It is a little like upward only rent reviews.

Will the Leader keep the House informed of developments in the investigation into possible Garda leaks relating to the forced resignation of Deputy Trevor Sargent? If, as the newspapers are reporting, the information was maliciously released by a source within the Garda, it should concern every decent and honourable parliamentarian. This would not be the first time for such an event to happen. During the 1997 presidential campaign a Garda file on the brother of one of the candidates, Mr. Dónal de Róiste, was released at a time when it was calculated to do damage. This is serious because cannot have the police force interfering in the political life of the country.

As we meet, Ezra Nawi is appearing in the High Court in Jerusalem for the hearing of an appeal against his conviction for an assault on two Israeli soldiers during an illegal demolition of Palestinian housing, despite the fact that the newsreel film showed him clearly taking stones from some of the Palestinian protestors while saying, “This is a peaceful protest”. He disappeared inside the house being demolished; two soldiers went in after him and he emerged dishevelled saying, “Please, do not beat me,” yet the judge, in a remarkable echo of the Denning judgment, preferred not to face the appalling vista that the police were lying, even though other policeman had previously lied in similar cases. This is a campaign, as described yesterday by a colleague, “to silence a democratic voice” in one of the only democracies in the Middle East.

Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010) - Committee Stage 4th March 2010

Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010)- Committee Stage - 4th March 2010.
SECTION 3.

An Cathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 6 to 8, inclusive, 12, 13, 28 and 32 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.


Senator David Norris: I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

“ ’bioethanol’ shall only be deemed to constitute a biofuel in the case of ethyl alcohol ex CN (Combined nomenclature) sub-heading Taric code 2207 1000 with an alcohol content of at least 99 per cent volume the properties of which comply at least the requirements set in document EN 15376:2007 or any subsequent revisions to this document by the EU Committee for Standardisation CEN;”.

This is a series of related amendments which go right to the heart of the matter on which I have been lobbied effectively by a commercial company. I think the Minister of State will agree that in the current economic circumstances it is important that we foster and encourage potential indigenous industrial development. What we are looking for is a level playing field. It is similar to the position on Brazilian beef. I happen to love Brazil. Its people are very charming. It is a very beautiful place and I have been there on a number of occasions. Therefore, I am not anti-Brazilian, but we need a level playing field for those involved in our own industry. We have seen the agitation of farmers on the rules pertaining to beef production. We face a similar situation where the possible development of an indigenous industry may be stymied by the absence from the Bill of certain measures concerning tariffs which would bring us into line with at least eight other European countries which have introduced similar legislation. They have provided for such tariffs to create a level playing field.

Some of the language used is unattractive - natured and undenatured. “Undenatured” is one of the most ugly words I have ever come across, but, regrettably, it appears to be necessary to describe some of the technical processes involved. Undenatured or naturally produced bioethanol is the equivalent of a kind of poteen; additives are included to dilute it and so on. It is also sometimes needed for certain chemical processes and so forth. However, the transport of undenatured ethanol is a standard international practice. There is nothing against it; it is not dangerous. Therefore, there is no technical argument against it. To secure the type of investment required, which is very significant, it is essential that our domestic legislation mirrors the European legislation of which I have spoken. Sweden applies these tariffs to Brazilian ethanol, as do Belgium, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Austria and Spain. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment and to get involved in direct discussions with the agencies that wish to introduce this type of manufacturing into this country.

The impact of this would be to secure jobs and to provide for the security of our bio-fuel requirements within the European Union. At present, we use some of the major oil companies, which bring it in from various countries around the world. That does not confer any real benefit on the Irish industrial community. There would also be the development of plant infrastructure, and 4% of our fossil fuel requirements would be replaced by this indigenously produced material, which is very environmentally friendly. A total of 100,000 tonnes of fuel would be produced as well as 110,000 tonnes of the basic materials for animal feed. In that regard we currently import soya from various countries, including Brazil. It will also produce 60,000 tonnes of CO2 gas, which we must import at present through the British Oxygen Company. The proposed plant would be located in Waterford and would be a major industrial development for the area. It would help to alleviate the economic distress being experienced in Waterford, particularly in the aftermath of the closure of companies such as Waterford Glass. That must be a major argument for the Government.

What is being proposed is the adoption of the quality standard technically known as EN15376 which is also applied to externally sourced ethanol outside the European Union. The standard represents 99% volume purity, anhydrous - without water - and is the recommended standard used by the majority of EU member states to prevent tariff engineering of undenatured ethanol outside the EU or in bonded warehouses. The difference in both standards, in the main, is the water content of approximately 3%. The Brazilians would prefer to denature their own ethanol outside EU borders or within bonded warehouses inside the EU. This essentially means a lower bioethanol production cost per litre while obtaining maximum price within the EU. In other words, it is a tax dodge. This benefits the Brazilian domestic industry, without having to maintain EU standards of production.

We are talking about an improved security of supply and the development, construction and operation of a €100 million bioethanol facility. This is in addition to the indirect support of approximately 1,000 jobs in the Waterford area, which is an economic blackspot. It would also create new opportunities for the agriculture sector after the ending of the production of sugar beet. There is a serious problem in agriculture with the decline in sheep and cattle prices. This development would have the spin-off effect of producing feed. There would be a significant tax contribution through PAYE, corporation tax, rates and VAT to the Exchequer while there would be import substitution of 110,000 tonnes of soya animal feed through the utilisation of the distillers dried grains with solubles, DDGS, by-product, a product which is highly sustainable both in terms of environmental performance and greenhouse gas emissions savings. Furthermore, there is a knock-on effect in Brazil. Ireland, of course, will be a small player in this and Brazil is an enormous country. However, everybody is aware of the appalling impact on the rainforest. Millions of acres are destroyed partly for the production of soya. The production of bioethanol in Brazil is also having an impact. There are many environmental and commercial reasons for considering this proposal.

There appears to be a perception that there are technical problems relating to the importation of undenatured Brazilian ethanol for fuel use. It must be denatured before it can be transported. All Brazilian ethanol is produced and exported in an undenatured state. The denaturant is added within the EU borders, prior to the duty point, depending on the requirements of the individual end users and their national regulations. It is denatured as a result of European national customs requirements by adding a select number of additives listed in EN15376. Transport of denatured ethanol is rare and only happens if the end user requires it. Shipping undenatured ethanol has nothing to do with technical feasibility; it is a standard practice around the globe.

With regard to the water content in ethanol, EU oil and car companies do not want too much water in the ethanol. The Brazilians always complain about this and say that the standard is a non-tariff barrier. However, there has been an international inquiry into this issue and a tripartite committee was established, comprising membership from the United States, Brazil and the European Union. Last year, the official conclusions were reached and they were unanimous that the water content issue was not a barrier to trade. The Minister will be able to possess himself of this report.

There have been doubts about the economic viability of an Irish bio-fuel plant. There is the issue of economies of scale but this has been well researched and is supported by other major European, particularly German, chemical combines. The plant size suggested is optimised to match both Irish demand for fuel ethanol and the capacity to produce feedstuff. As an island, Ireland has a number of competitive advantages over other locations to make the plant viable. I accept that the economic viability of an Irish plant is an issue to concern the promoter. It is a market risk for the developer, but the developer will take this risk. I am asking that the Seanad create the market conditions through legislation that will enable these investors and potential Irish industrialists to develop it.

There are benefits with regard to carbon dioxide as well. We import all our carbon dioxide through the British Oxygen Company. I recall seeing its lorries travelling through Dublin transporting cylinders and my cousin was the company’s chief engineer at one time. The fact that we import all this gas makes CO2 capture at the plant viable and will provide the company with an additional revenue stream. It currently costs €60 per tonne in transport charges alone to import this gas into Ireland so it will be a significant revenue stream. The CO2 capture also greatly enhances the environmental performance of the plant. One of the other by-products is distillers dried grains with solubles, DDGS. It is a valuable by-product and is a direct substitute for imported animal feed. Once again, it would mean the replacement of imported material with Irish-produced material.

I have absolutely no commercial interest in this proposal. I merely met the people concerned but I considered the proposal so valuable I put forward these amendments. Ireland’s production costs per tonne are competitive within Europe. This is partly because we have the highest wheat yields in Europe due to the longer growing period. There are various other points concerning price and the impact at the fuel pumps which can be dealt with.

(12 o’clock)
In terms of sustainability, the demand for land in Brazil, in particular, has been driven by the increased demand for soya, sugar cane and beef. It can be expected that an increased demand for bioethanol worldwide to fulfil bio-fuel obligations will automatically create further pressure to convert rainforest to agricultural land. Saying bioethanol is produced using sustainable methods does not guarantee that the rainforest will not be knocked indirectly by beef farms as a result of an increased demand for sugar cane. As I said, the scale of destruction is absolutely vast. Millions of acres have been destroyed. The demand for bioethanol will increase and the question is where should it be produced. I made the argument that it should be produced here to generate jobs and very valuable materials. If the Government decides not to apply the tariff which eight other European countries have successfully applied and in so doing so secured their indigenous industries, it may be unknowingly promoting the destruction of the rainforest by creating increased demand which would be contrary to its intentions. I ask the Minister of State to ensure a level playing field which would require no investment on the part of the Government. It would at least open up the possibility of securing the development of a significant industry in what is an economic black spot.

I ask that Seanad Éireann employ all of its forces in requesting the Minister of State to take this matter very seriously, on which I believe I will receive support from other sections of the House. There would be no cost to the Exchequer. The Government would simply need to create the market conditions, whereby we could develop a viable, indigenous industry and give employment to our own people during this critical and difficult period.

Deputy Conor Lenihan: I propose to respond to amendments Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 28 and 32 together. I thank Senators Norris, O’Reilly, Walsh, McCarthy, O’Toole and John Paul Phelan for contributing to the debate on this matter. I assure them the Minister is very much on board in relation to the spirit of the proposed amendments. The national bio-fuel obligation will incentivise the sustainable growth of the indigenous bio-fuel market, support indigenous bio-fuel producers and expand production. The EU sustainability criteria will also provide a competitive advantage for Irish and other EU producers by ensuring non-EU imports meet strict environmental guidelines. We must, however, remain compliant with EU and WTO guidelines on trade, meaning we cannot restrict imports unfairly.

The amendments largely suggest Ireland should mimic the fuel standards in place in other member states, including Germany and France, which serve as an effective barrier to outright competition from imports outside the European Union. Essentially, there are two separate tariff codes – one for denatured or industrial and the other for food grade or agricultural. The latter is significantly higher at 19.2 cents per litre versus 10.2 cents per litre. Many member states have done this with the explicit aim of protecting domestic production such as in the Germans’ bio-fuel quota Act and the French legislative equivalent.

The European Commission would have to be notified under Directive 98/34/EC as this type of initiative would be deemed to be a technical regulation. From a national perspective, the only substantial problem with the course of action is that the United Kingdom has not adopted such a measure. Given that we import 60% of our road transport fuel from the United Kingdom, such a measure could have the potential to substantially increase costs to Irish consumers, theoretically, as they would have to be supplied with a different blend of bioethanol.

The fact this standard is in widespread use across Europe means much of European production capacity is already geared towards producing the same. The bioethanol in use in Ireland probably already meets this standard. As such the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, is considering this with a view to making an amendment in the Dáil. We are in the process of notifying the Commission about this change, as required. This is known as a technical regulation. Once notification is lodged, we can then make the amendment in the Dáil. We would prefer to do it on Report Stage in the Seanad but because of the timing factors involved, it will arise on Second Stage in the Dáil. It is key to ensure the consumer will not be adversely affected by cost increases stemming from any such measure in this area. The concept of a deferred introduction is one the Minister is considering in that regard. I do not propose, therefore, to accept the amendments on the grounds that it would be pre-emptive to do so. I do not propose to accept the amendment to the Title on the grounds that it already deals with this issue in so far it is possible or appropriate to do so.

I thank Senators for their contributions. The spirit and content of their amendments will be approximated to the Bill when it reaches Second Stage in the Dáil.


Senator Joe O’Toole: One cannot make amendments on Second Stage.


Senator David Norris: It is perfectly clear we have won the argument in this House, a fact with which the Minister of State has agreed. There is universal support for the amendments and I am glad we have had the opportunity to table them. Will the Minister of State examine as urgently as possible any facility for accepting them in this House rather than in the Dáil, as the arguments for their acceptance was made here? The Seanad is always attacked for being redundant. This, however, is a damn good day’s work, creating the possibility of 1,000 jobs being created in an economic black spot. We have met all the scientific, environmental and agricultural arguments. It is important, therefore, that the amendments are introduced in the Seanad, even if it is by the use of a deferred date.

The Minister of State knows there have been erred calls for the abolition of this House, yet today there is a scandalous absence of press representation – I accept The Irish Times is probably watching on the monitor - for one of the most vital debates in which I have ever taken part, as it secures jobs. I have received correspondence from people across the country in despair, as they are losing their jobs and houses. Today the Seanad has done something positive. We did not call for another head on a plate, blood on the walls or guts on the carpet, which is the routine in Parliament.

On competition law and tariffs, I have referred to the unanimous report from the United States, Brazil and the European Union which answered that argument. Since eight countries – Senator John Paul Phelan has suggested there are more - have introduced tariffs, I do not see any reason we should kowtow to the British. We should get on with it and have the amendments accepted in this House. Will the Minister of State give the Official Report of the Committee Stage proceedings to the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, to highlight the unanimous approval for the amendments and inquire as to why it is not possible to have them passed in Seanad Éireann?

Order of Business - 2nd March 2010

Order of Business - 2nd March 2010
Senator David Norris: A group of people, some of whom are hard of hearing, visited the Oireachtas a week ago. They contacted me afterwards to point out, quite reasonably, that churches, cinemas and theatres in this city have hearing loops to enable people with hearing difficulties to hear what is going on, so therefore it seems strange that such a facility is not available in this Parliament. I ask the Leader to check whether this matter can be raised at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.


Senator Rónán Mullen: We have loopers all right, but no loops.


An Cathaoirleach: No interruption, please.


Senator David Norris: I support my colleagues on both sides of the House who have asked for a debate on banking. We need to monitor the NAMA situation. We need to counter the misinformation that is being put out. The EU has not sanctioned or given the green light to NAMA.


Senator Terry Leyden: Really?


Senator David Norris: It just has not given it the red light. We need to look at this again. The US had a similar situation with TARP I. They voted it down and brought in TARP II. We know that the loan amounts are grossly inflated. We are putting in €77 billion. The value of the loans is less than €37 billion. We are told we need to spend a huge amount of taxpayers’ money to provide a functioning bank service. The bank system is not functioning. Loans are not being provided to productive businesses. People who want to switch their mortgages are forbidden from doing so. We really need to examine taking a lower amount of €40 billion to write down the bondholders by €20 billion and put in a capital injection of €20 billion. Then one may find oneself in the same current NAMA position on which we are spending so much money. It is important to discuss these vital matters in the House.

Order of Business - 4th March 2010

Order of Business - 4th March 2010
Senator David Norris: I regret once again we are not breaking for lunch. I will not amend the Order of Business because of it but it is a pity. We are entitled, as human beings, to some kind of decent treatment. I have no difficulty whatever with our salaries being cut but I would appreciate if we had decent facilities in this House.

My secretary is in every morning at 7.30 a.m. She does not take lunch but has an apple. She often works until 6 p.m. and after but we have run out of the overtime allowance. I am here every day and I am delighted we are clocking in. At least people will know those of us who are here. It would be very refreshing if they could monitor the doings of the House to see who contributes and all the rest of it.

Since the development of electronic communication, there is a flood of communications every day.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Yes, every day.

Senator David Norris: In the recession, there are people whose homes are under threat, children are sick, have planning difficulties or are in debt which must be answered. I never get to bed until after midnight. Then I have to listen to cheap shots on the wireless claiming we were in the Seanad for a day and a quarter and get paid for doing nothing. I bitterly resent and reject it. I do not mind what we get paid but I want the facilities to do the job. At present, we are being asked to make bricks without straw.

I support Senator Frances Fitzgerald that it is horrifying there are 20 reports on children in care awaiting publication. I must signal the warning, however, that it is terribly important that in intervening in this area we make absolutely certain we do not prejudice the welfare and rights of the other family members concerned. I particularly think of two small children who will probably learn from their schoolmates today of the tragic circumstances of their mother’s death. In these matters we need sensitivity.

Prohibition of Depleted Uranium Weapons Bill 2009 - Second Stage - 3rd March 2010.

Prohibition of Depleted Uranium Weapons Bill 2009 - Second Stage - 3rd March 2010.
Senator David Norris: I compliment Senator Boyle and his colleagues on this legislation. It is very important and I welcome the fact that there is a general welcome from the House for this. It always surprises me that, when we confront catastrophes such as the situation in Chile and Haiti, people do not realise there are enough catastrophes without mankind deliberately inflicting other disasters on itself. I mention this because I was involved in the campaign for a ban on cluster bombs. I raised it in this House where we had a good special debate, and I also introduced some material though the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. The situation is urgent because I have reports that traces of depleted uranium have been found in some of the children affected by the conflict in Gaza. The Minister of State is sensitive to this issue and is aware of the problems. That is deeply worrying. I was in Iraq before the latest American adventure and even then I met people who claimed they had been affected by depleted uranium. Their claims appear to have had some justification.

Uranium is a naturally occurring element but, as Senator Ó Brolcháin said, this is a by-product of the nuclear industry. It was first manufactured in the 1940s when the United States and the former Soviet Union began a nuclear weapons programme. They discovered it was useful for protecting tanks. They began coating tanks with this material. The Americans discovered it was impossible to penetrate and they developed new weapons technology. We are now confronted with a product of the Second World War and the arms race. People are taking this increasingly seriously. Costa Rica has just introduced legislation along these lines. Seventeen countries have this kind of weapon: Britain, the United States, France, Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Greece, Turkey, Bahrain, Oman, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan, Thailand, China, India and Taiwan. The British company, BAE, was producing depleted uranium shells for the British forces until 2003. I am glad to say it has ceased production but some stockpiles are left. There is much highly technical material in this area and I am not a qualified scientist. In addition, I have had a very busy day and my mind is reeling from reading this material. That said, I think I have understood sufficient of it for me to be concerned about the existence of these weapons and very glad Senator Boyle and his colleagues have introduced the Bill.

The Bill would make it illegal to “test, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, sell, deploy, retain or transfer, directly or indirectly, uranium ammunition, uranium armour-plate or other uranium weapons to anyone”. It would also make it illegal “acquire or dispose of pre-products for development and production of uranium weapons”. Legislation was debated in one of our European neighbours, Belgium, and concerns were expressed lest the text affect some American military installations. I would be very happy if it did so negatively affect the American installations. I compliment Senator Boyle on the definitions which appear to resolve what may have been problematic in other countries. The Bill states:

“Uranium weapon” means a mechanism which serves to destroy or damage objects and uses uranium in its mode of action. Excluded from this definition are weapons that incorporate uranium and whose primary tactical purpose in this incorporation is the production, flux, or enhancement, of nuclear fission or fusion.

This is a form of nuclear waste and this links it to the civilian nuclear energy, as my newly elected colleague said. Nowadays, considering the crisis facing the planet, we cannot completely close our minds to the possibility of nuclear power. It is rather hypocritical of us to be prepared to use the interconnector to introduce electricity that is generated by nuclear capacity, yet turn our faces against nuclear power. That has some echoes of the abortion situation, where we do not allow it in this country but simply export it. In this case we are importing energy.

Depleted uranium is a chemically toxic and radioactive compound used in armour piercing munitions because of its very high density. It is 1.7 times denser than lead, giving these weapons increased range and penetrative power. I bracket these weapons with white phosphorus and cluster bombs. I would like to see white phosphorus banned; it is an appalling weapon. Flechettes are another form of fiendish device. We must keep reviewing these weapons. Depleted uranium is used extensively and in landmines. It was used in the Gulf War, in Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo and in the war in Iraq in 2003 by the United States and the United Kingdom. It was also used in Afghanistan in 2001.

The real problem is the dangerous and continuing quality of depleted uranium. When burned it produces an oxide dust that has no natural or historical analogue. This toxic and radioactive dust is composed of two oxides, one insoluble, the other sparingly soluble. The distribution of particle sizes includes sub-micron particles that are readily inhaled into and retained by the lungs. From the lungs uranium compounds are deposited in the lymph nodes, bones, brain and testes. Hard targets hit by DU penetrators are surrounded by this dust and surveys suggest that it can travel many kilometres when re-suspended, as is likely in arid climates such as the desert. The dust can then be inhaled or ingested by civilians and the military alike. In other words, it does not discriminate. The lymph nodes, bones, brain and testes are prime candidates for carcinogenic material and, therefore, cancer is a serious danger. It is believed these weapons are the cause of sharp increases in some forms of cancer such as breast cancer and lymphoma and this is substantially documented. It is also worrying in the Balkans because there are suggestions that despite the fact DU is only sometimes soluble, the corroding penetrators have been held to be likely to affect ground-water. That is a continuing and serious problem.

The chief radiological hazard from Uranium 238 is alpha radiation. When inhaled or ingested, alpha radiation is the most damaging form of ionising radiation. I note the implications of some investments of large capitalist groups. For example, the Royal Bank of Scotland is heavily involved in financing the use of this material and its Ulster Bank subsidiary bears looking at. Bodies such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection put themselves forward. They are not pure, as they are too closely related to some of these big businesses. In addition, they use average male body format when they calculate the impact of DU, ignoring completely the fact that ionising radiation has a much more substantial and negative impact on pregnant women and children. I would be careful about these groups with grand sounding names.

As U238 decays into its daughter products thorium and protactinium, both beta and gamma radiation are released, increasing the radiation burden further. Therefore, DU particles must be considered as a dynamic mixture of radioactive isotopes. Inside the body alpha radiation is incredibly disruptive. The heavy, highly charged particles leave a trail of ionised free radicals in their wake, disrupting finely tuned cellular processes. Like many other heavy metals, such as lead, chromium, nickel and mercury, uranium exposure can be damaging to health, particularly the kidney and other soft tissue areas. Recent studies in hamsters found that these products make it more likely that the DNA will be repaired incorrectly, which leads to replicated errors, and this is a classic formula for carcinogensis.

As a result it is not entirely surprising that the UN General Assembly passed a resolution highlighting serious health concerns over DU and, in May 2008, 94% of MEPs in the European Parliament strengthened four previous calls for a moratorium by calling for a DU ban treaty in a wide-ranging resolution. I compliment my colleagues for treating this serious and sometimes technical subject with the concern it deserves and for presenting this important Bill to the House.

Order of Business - 3rd March 2010

Order of Business - 3rd March 2010
Senator David Norris: I support Senator O’Toole’s comments about the BAI. It is extraordinary that it should bring forward a proposal for a 30% increase on its 2009 budget. Many small radio stations are on the margins and it is peculiar that the body charged with the guardianship of their interests should place them at risk. It is a little like upward only rent reviews.

Will the Leader keep the House informed of developments in the investigation into possible Garda leaks relating to the forced resignation of Deputy Trevor Sargent? If, as the newspapers are reporting, the information was maliciously released by a source within the Garda, it should concern every decent and honourable parliamentarian. This would not be the first time for such an event to happen. During the 1997 presidential campaign a Garda file on the brother of one of the candidates, Mr. Dónal de Róiste, was released at a time when it was calculated to do damage. This is serious because cannot have the police force interfering in the political life of the country.

As we meet, Ezra Nawi is appearing in the High Court in Jerusalem for the hearing of an appeal against his conviction for an assault on two Israeli soldiers during an illegal demolition of Palestinian housing, despite the fact that the newsreel film showed him clearly taking stones from some of the Palestinian protestors while saying, “This is a peaceful protest”. He disappeared inside the house being demolished; two soldiers went in after him and he emerged dishevelled saying, “Please, do not beat me,” yet the judge, in a remarkable echo of the Denning judgment, preferred not to face the appalling vista that the police were lying, even though other policeman had previously lied in similar cases. This is a campaign, as described yesterday by a colleague, “to silence a democratic voice” in one of the only democracies in the Middle East.

Order of Business - 25th February 2010

Order of Business - 25th February 2010
Senator David Norris: I join colleagues in asking for a debate on the financial system but it should cover the economy generally and not be confined to the banks. I walked through the Hibernian Way and Creation Arcade on may to Leinster House earlier. Approximately 50% of the shops are closed and the remainder have sales with reductions ranging from 50% to 70%. That hits one when one physically sees it. I commend the President and Dr. Martin McAleese on their initiative to seek ideas for jobs. This is positive and creative.

11 o’clock
I am astonished to hear Members say Mr. Michael O’Leary should be supported in his efforts to evict Aer Lingus. He is a very colourful, flamboyant, brilliant and successful businessman but he is a robber baron and it would be astonishing in terms of financial morality if we were to stand over a situation where contracts, leases and so on could be just torn up willy-nilly because jobs which may or may not be there are dangled in a cruel fashion in front of a hungry workfoce. This is the kind of thing we witnessed at Shannon Airport where we were prepared to give into financial gangsterism and sacrifice all our principles of morality and decency. I will oppose this, although I admire the business enterprise of Mr. O’Leary.

The House should congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs on managing to get into Gaza. He is a courageous man. I have been their in similar circumstances and it was not pleasant. Apart from the appalling conditions in which people are living that I had to witness, I was in an UNRWA van with both sides shooting across us. There was thin metal between me and death. The Minister should meet Hamas representatives. The peace process in Northern Ireland was successful because we overcame our revulsion at bombers and gunmen and we dealt directly with people. This is not the same. A legitimate government has been driven into a corner. It behaved badly but, by goodness, it is nothing compared to the crimes being perpetrated against the people of Gaza.

Motion on Special Educational Needs - 24th February 2010.

Motion on Special Educational Needs - 24th February 2010
Senator David Norris: First I wish to place this in a context. At the outset of this economic crisis, I warned that the Government was completely wrong to dismantle every agency that spoke out on behalf of the vulnerable. It did so and this kind of thing is the result. However, I do not believe that all virtue or human feeling resides in this House and I know my former colleague from this House, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe, to be a decent and caring man. This does not mean the policies always are decent or caring because they may in fact not be. Regardless of what one might think, the loss of 1,200 special needs assistants is a quite extraordinary cull and must be explained. It appears as though there has been an attempt to explain this in economic terms, which can be highly problematic because these are the most vulnerable people and I do not believe the full case has been made.

I wish to say something in particular about St. Joseph’s school, Balrothery, at which there has been a quite extraordinary and devastating reduction of 66%. In his contribution, the Minister asked an extraordinary question of Senator Healy Eames. He asked Senator Healy Eames:

whether she really believes that a child who is developing independence and confidence should continue to receive support he or she does not need. Might that inhibit the child’s further development?

That was a most extraordinary phrase, at which I turned round and looked at some of the parents and teachers from St. Joseph’s school, Balrothery, in the Gallery. If the Minister is good at reading body language, he will have read the answer. It was a grotesque question as of course the children need it. I was very glad that Senator——


Senator Cecilia Keaveney: That is totally——


Senator David Norris: Shut up for a minute.


Senator Cecilia Keaveney: ——unfair.


Senator Ned O’Sullivan: That is out of order.


An Cathaoirleach: It is totally wrong to say “shut up”.


Senator David Norris: I listened to Senator Ormonde——


Senator Ann Ormonde: That was out of order.


Senator David Norris: It was not a bit out of order. I am fed up with this kind of thing. We have a short amount of time and there are real issues here. I am not attacking the other side, but——


Senator Ned O’Sullivan: He is not allowed to tell a Senator to shut up.


Senator David Norris: ——I do not appreciate this attempt to waste time.


An Cathaoirleach: Telling anyone in this Parliament to shut up is——


Senator David Norris: I will leave it to the Cathaoirleach, but it is not a bit unparliamentary.


An Cathaoirleach: It is unparliamentary.


Senator David Norris: I meant it and they should because that kind of behaviour disgraces them.


Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: It is outrageous.


An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris would not like anyone to say it to him.


Senator Ned O’Sullivan: It would not work, either.


Senator David Norris: It would not bother me in the slightest. I have had a lot worse said to me, I can assure the Cathaoirleach. I am not so thin skinned. I acknowledge the fact that people on the Government side of the House are raw because there is pressure. This is a difficult time, difficult decisions must be taken and so on, but I like the fact that Senator Ormonde stated she will not stand over a situation in which special needs assistants, SNAs, are withdrawn from where they are needed. If one asks the parents, teachers and professionals whether SNAs are needed, they will tell one. It should not just be the people who are sent in by various Departments, as it depends on their expertise. They might be sent in to take part in the cull.

This is a serious situation and it was heartening that Senators O’Toole and Ó Brolcháin appeared to be moving towards a common ground in trying to assert pressure in support of the Minister. Many of these moves come from the Department of Finance. That is its remit. However, we should all stand over a situation in which people are not forced out of their work.

Had the motion been worded slightly differently and the word “failure” not been included, accommodating it would have been easier for the Government. It is not always helpful to discuss failure. The motion calls on the Minister to publish the National Council for Special Education’s advice on this issue. Points that must be considered are that he has indicated the advice is in the process of publication independently of him and that he does not have it. This was a reasonable comment to make and I was glad to be able to hear it. He was then asked to provide a timeline——


An Cathaoirleach: The Senator’s time is up.


Senator David Norris: I want a bit of injury time because I was heckled by the Government side.


An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris will be taking from Senator Prendergast.


Senator David Norris: I will not. If she has any sense, she will keep talking past her time.


An Cathaoirleach: I will not allow it.


Senator Cecilia Keaveney: This is disrespect for the Chair.


Senator David Norris: The Cathaoirleach might face a series of challenges because this situation is ridiculous.


An Cathaoirleach: I call for Senator Norris to finish and to allow Senator Prendergast contribute. Please respect the Chair.


Senator David Norris: I will finish on this point.


An Cathaoirleach: The Senator cannot.


Senator David Norris: The Cathaoirleach is now interrupting me. I would like the time that I have been allocated democratically to speak on this issue. It is making a farce of the whole matter that we are all treated like this.


Senator Cecilia Keaveney: Playing to the gallery.


Senator David Norris: That is fact coming from Senator Keaveney. I will let Senator Prendergast in because I am sure she will make a compelling case. I am also sure she will get her full allocation of time.


An Cathaoirleach: That is fine and she will.

Statements on the Report of Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children - 24 February 2010

Statments on the Report of Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children - 24 February 2010
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State and applaud this decision. Partial though it is, it is an improvement. We are starting from a low base. The Minister of State in his speech rehearsed criticism from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. When reporting on the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1998, it stated that our approach to children’s rights seemed to be somewhat fragmented. This was diplomatic language for saying that we had done a bad job. The committee also indicated that our welfare practices and policies do not adequately reflect the child rights-based approach enshrined in the Constitution. In fact, matters are worse than that. It is not just that the old Victorian idea about children being seen and not heard was widespread, an idea that children were, in some sense, the property of their parents and were treated as such, just as women were treated as chattels. Rather, it is also the appalling situation in which both church and State stood deeply condemned for their complete dereliction of their responsibility for looking after the welfare of children. Children were not regarded as significant or as having any right to a voice. They were serially abused, degraded, humiliated, physically tortured and interfered with sexually. This is the base from which we are starting.

A number of years ago in the House, Senator O’Toole and I advocated the Stay Safe programme to protect children in schools. We were attacked widely by elements in society, the voices of which are still being heard. The reason for the attack was that the family, as an institution, was regarded as some kind of sacred shibboleth, the interests of which were placed above those of the child. This was an horrendous absence of any type of moral value. It is always wrong to place an institution above an individual. The individual feels, bleeds and suffers. The institution is created for the welfare of the individual. I go right back to the Bible for this point. Christ was reproved for just grinding an ear of corn between his fingers. The self-righteous hypocrites of the New Testament, who are still with us, accused him of working on and breaking the Sabbath. He made the point that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. This is why it is so important that we recognise the humanity of children, which has been done in this amendment to the Constitution.

I compliment our former colleague in this House, Deputy O’Rourke, who was a forthright and clear Leader of the Seanad. With great skill, she moderated the committee’s discussions. It is a tribute to her and all the committee members, some of whom are present, that an agreement was reached on a sensitive matter. It is useful that the agreement has the strength of the support of a committee drawn from all the political parties in the Houses. I welcome this development.

The Minister of State has indicated that voices such as those to which I referred are still active in our community. I would quote him if I could find a copy of his speech. The copy I have is not mine. He referred to people being concerned about the intervention of the State and the lowering of the threshold at which that takes place, thereby infringing the rights of the family in some way. I have also heard these opinions, but I deplore them and those who expressed them. I question their representative nature. I have heard representatives from the so-called Iona Institute speaking on this subject and advocating the rights of the family and the parent. I heard similar people when we raised the issue of fathers sexually abusing their children, at which time we were told that we were in some way interfering with the family. The family needs to be interfered with in those circumstances. It is right and proper that it should be.

The Iona Institute has every right to exist and express its view. However, let us be clear. It is an unelected, unrepresentative group of reactionary, right-wing, religiously motivated people. They have an undue prominence in this debate. Contributions to this debate should be proportionate. It is most unwise to give oxygen, in the media and other places, to this very nasty view. When I heard one of their spokespeople on the radio the other day I had an instant sense of déjà vu. I was thinking of my wonderful old friend and inspiration, the late Dr. Noël Browne, the mother and child scheme and the way in which the church in this country objected to the sustenance given out to nursing mothers and their children because it thought this was an interference and an undermining of its authority. Once again, the Church did not give a damn about the welfare of the mothers and their children. It was interested in its own power. I would like to think those days have gone from this society and that we will bravely support the rights of children.

We have had a number of cases like the Kilkenny incest case. In 1993 the Honourable Ms Justice Catherine McGuinness asked for this kind of referendum.

I would welcome the suggestion implicit in the wording that we would insert in the Constitution that glorious phrase from the 1916 Proclamation that the State cherishes “all the children of the State equally”. I understand that is one suggestion and I hope it is taken on board. Most citizens of the country believe the phrase is already in the Constitution so let us satisfy them and put it there. Let us also remember that the word “children” did not mean people under a certain age. It meant all the people of the State because we are all the children of the State.

We need also to take our courage in our hands and look at Article 41 and this constrictive definition of the family. It does not suit the 21st century. We should look at that again, particularly if it inhibits the application of the proposal.

With regard to the question of adoption, I hope the disgraceful moral ignorance and neglect of the Government in the civil partnership legislation, where the rights of children of gay couples are ignored totally, will be addressed with the support of this proposed amendment. It will give the children some rights, at least. I know I am speaking to a sympathetic audience in this House, and in particular to the Minister of State whose decency I well understand. The Minister of State and virtually everyone in this House must agree with me that it is a nonsense that gay people can legally adopt children as single individuals, whether they are biological parents or not, but if the adopting parent dies the child is left with no rights whatever. Perhaps this will be some kind of half measure to address that.

When the civil partnership Bill comes to this House I will be attempting to amend it in order to protect the rights of children and I will be calling the bluff of the Government to make sure it is serious when it says the rights of children are paramount. It is not the rights of parents, gay or otherwise, but the rights and welfare of children which are important. I can say that with some background because I was responsible for the section of the Child Care Act which introduced the guardian ad litem principle, in the aftermath of the Maria Colwell case, in order to give a voice to children, who must be heard.

Order of Business - 24th February 2010

Order of Business - 24th February 2010.
Senator David Norris: This House is being increasingly treated with contempt and a classic example was last night when I raised a very significant matter about the economy of the country and serious violations and infringements of liquidity regulations in a consistent, deliberate and repeated manner. The answer I received from the Minister of State was that there was no ministerial responsibility. If there is not, why did the Cathaoirleach allow it because that is the test it must pass? That was a lie. I impugned the reputation of the Office of the Financial Regulator and it was suggested to me that I should bring it up with the regulator. What kind of puerile nonsense is this? It is an insult to the House and I demand that this sort of behaviour should stop.

I agree with Senator Fitzgerald about the symphysiotomy situation. It is appalling. It is a cruel, barbarous and inappropriate treatment. I was shocked to hear on both programmes that it was motivated by sectarian religious impulses and I would like to know a little more about that. If it is true, it needs to be explored further and exposed. I would like to know more about Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda. Every time there is a scandal or a risk to health it seems to be at the centre of it. Why? Let us have an inquiry into that.

I was not impressed by the representative of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Some years ago, it was asked by the same Minster for a report. It gave one page which was as contemptuous as the way in which this House was treated last night. It dismissed everything, and it was incorrect for it to do so. It was wrong about it. This operation has not been current in any other European country since 1944 and since the discovery of sulphonamide drugs. It is practised sometimes in sub-Saharan Africa in the bush because of difficulties such as a lack of medical supervision and so on. It is appalling to think that 1,500 operations were carried out. It is not a matter of one or two operations. It was a deliberate and consistent practice which was known and ignored by the professional body and now we are sending it back to them. They are not fit to be charged with this. It should be a fully independent inquiry. Every spokesperson on both programmes defended the practice in some——
An Cathaoirleach: Senator——
Senator David Norris: Sorry Cathaoirleach but I will continue——
An Cathaoirleach: No, no——
Senator David Norris: ——and you can throw me out if you like——
An Cathaoirleach: Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator David Norris: ——because I think this is a disgrace.
An Cathaoirleach: I call Senator Walsh. Senator Norris’s time is up.
Senator David Norris: We are trying to decide serious issues——
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris——
Senator David Norris: ——and we are not allowed to because of some puerile rule——
An Cathaoirleach: Your time is up.
Senator David Norris: ——for which the Leader of the House is directly responsible and I know that.
An Cathaoirleach: I ask Senator Norris to resume his seat. His time is up. He has had his two minutes. I call Senator Walsh.
Senator David Norris: There is no democracy in this House——
An Cathaoirleach: There is democracy in this House.
Senator David Norris: ——because every section of the House wants it and there is one person standing up against it and it is the Leader of the House, Senator Donie Cassidy. If we had two hours every day it would be absolutely appropriate and I want this

Adjournment Debate on Financial Regulations - 23rd February 2010.

Adjournment Debate on Financial Regulation - 23rd February 2010

Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Áine Brady. As she may know, although my principal interest is in human rights, I contribute in a positive and constructive manner from time to time to the debate on economics. My positive attitude, however, does not mean that I am loath to be critical of either individuals or systems, as will be seen from a very significant case I raised last year concerning financial irregularities and the subsequent widespread cover-up. The Adjournment matter I raised at that time achieved its aim by generating significant publicity and helping to re-open an inquiry, although the matter is not yet concluded.

On this occasion I was approached by a senior financial executive from one of the European banks with its Irish headquarters in the Irish Financial Services Centre. This man, a senior risk manager at the bank whose repeated warnings that liquidity had fallen disastrously short of the required levels went virtually unheeded, was eventually obliged to resign his position in order not to incriminate himself.

I had several further meetings with this man, whom I designate “Whistleblower”, including one where he was accompanied by a senior financial figure from another Irish institution who fully corroborated his story. I formed a view that Whistleblower was a man of integrity and courage. He showed me a communication from the offending bank which stated that his allegations were false and defamatory and threatened legal action on foot of a particular letter dated 8 April 2008 addressed to senior management. It is open to the Minister to examine this matter, including the role or, indeed, significant failure of the Financial Regulator in this case as well as seeking discovery of all relevant documentation. This is what I now demand that he do in the interests of restoring the reputation of our banking system and meting out justice for Whistleblower, who behaved honourably, and to the banking institution, which has not.

Liquidity and the perception of a positive liquidity position is essential for the life blood of banking to flow. The crucial matter is whether the asset and liability side of a firm’s balance sheet can be realised and to what degree its assets would cover debts or obligations in the case of the dissolution or liquidation of the company. There are regulations proposed by central authorities that the ratio between liquid assets and liability would not be allowed to fall below certain guidelines. It is a requirement in the eventuality that this happens that the Financial Regulator should be informed immediately. These regulations were introduced by the Financial Regulator following the accord of the Bank of International Settlements in Basel 2007 under which the liquidity ratio below which banks should not fall was 90% of liabilities. This is monitored daily.

Whistleblower, following a career in banking in German banks in Ireland, joined the named bank in mid-May 2007 just some months before the liquidity regulations came into force on 1 July 2007. He was quickly established as risk manager for the company and, therefore, was among those responsible for reporting any such breaches. Consequently, when or if the bank failed to meet its obligations, he would be among those who risked severe penalties.

From the commencement of the operation of the regulations in July 2007 until Whistleblower’s resignation in mid-September of the same year, several daily liquidity reports showed the bank to be well beneath the 90% threshold. Each time he expressed concern, he was convinced by the bank’s treasury manager, his own assistants and the bank’s chief executive officer that these liquidity breaches were only technical and were related to information technology difficulties of which he was not fully cognisant. In other words, he was assured from the very top of the bank that these were not real breaches, merely technical glitches in the computing system, and he was instructed by the chief executive officer that they should not be reported to the Financial Regulator.

There had already been tension between the treasury team at the bank and the risk manager, that is, Whistleblower. He had a precise and ordered view of the way the regulations should be applied and on several occasions reprimanded staff for leaving work, such as the documentation of a multi-million euro transaction, incomplete.

Whistleblower contacted The Irish Times and spoke to a reporter in the financial area. The reporter indicated that he was aware of the situation in the bank on foot of an anonymous e-mail from some other source. The e-mail apparently stated that the bank in question was in a state of chaos and that the auditors were threatening to withdraw their services.

Despite the fact that what Whistleblower described as high pressure tactics were used at the bank to inhibit him from reporting breaches on the grounds that they were merely technical, on one occasion in late July or early August 2007, a breach actually was reported. On this occasion, a letter was prepared which notified the Financial Regulator that the bank’s liquidity ratio stood at only 70% but promised to remedy the situation immediately. This is a very serious matter as the margin of appreciation allowed under the regulations is a mere 1%. This represented 20 times the allowable margin. The letter was hand delivered to the Financial Regulator by Whistleblower who received a receipt which is now in the possession of the bank. Thus is established a clear and unbroken chain of evidence implicating not only the bank but also the Financial Regulator.

So worried was Whistleblower that he contacted a well-known firm of financial software consultants in London to seek their help in rectifying the situation. This company, whose name I shall supply to the Minister of State, agreed and Whistleblower facilitated their on-line connection to the system in Dublin. Within a day or two of this connection being made, an expert from the company telephoned from London to say that their calculations showed that the relevant liquidity ratio was only 50%, another staggering 20% lower than the already dangerous and impermissible 20%. He intensified his attempts to resolve the situation at the bank but met with such resistance that on 13 September 2007, he signified his intention to resign by e-mail as follows:

Dear [...]

In view of yesterday’s discussions in your office which have once again highlighted the fact that the integrity of the information provided to me as a Manager is doubtful, it has become apparent that I am not in a position to fulfil my contractual obligations as Risk Manager at [X] Bank.

Therefore I regretfully wish to advise you that I am resigning from my position at this bank. Obviously I shall not be signing any report or document with immediate effect.

Under the terms of his severance, he remained technically an employee of the bank for the next month while his notice was worked out, although he did not attend the workplace. The bank attempted to persuade him to withdraw his resignation but he refused. Informants within the bank told him that on receipt of his resignation, all hell broke loose and eventually the Financial Regulator took over the entire bank for approximately two weeks. One of the figures involved at the London end of the consultancy firm told him that shortly after the Financial Regulator’s staff arrived at the bank, the link between the consultancy and the Dublin bank was disconnected on the Dublin side and all communications between the bank and external consultants ceased. This suggests panic on the part of the Financial Regulator and the bank. This was not entirely surprising given that the Financial Regulator was already under negative pressure from its German regulatory counterpart, BaFin, because of the near collapse of Sachsen Landers Bank triggered by irregularities in its Dublin subsidiary.

6 o’clock
It is astonishing that my informant, who was the initial whistleblower, was not on any occasion interviewed by the Financial Regulator nor was any attempt whatever made to contact him despite the fact that he was still technically an employee of the bank. Nevertheless, it is a legal requirement that all documentation of this kind must be kept and available for review at the bank. On top of this, records in the possession of the Financial Regulator should also document the bank’s failure to satisfy the liquidity regulations. One would not have to be Albert Einstein to detect, by comparing the balance sheet figures reported to the Financial Regulator by the bank with the liquidity ratios that were also reported, that an entire section of the bank’s balance sheet was not accounted for in the liquidity calculations. This may well have something to do with the lamentable situation encountered in other major Irish banks where dubious interbank loans are covertly arranged — something known as repo and reverse transactions. It seems obvious that there is a prima facie case that the bank behaved grossly irresponsibly and in breach of the law and that the Financial Regulator completely failed to engage in prudential supervision and exercise control of the bank’s activities as required in the State. I have presented a cast-iron case to the Minister to investigate this serious matter further.


Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Áine Brady): I thank the Senator for raising this matter on the Adjournment, to which I am pleased to respond on behalf the Minister for Finance.

Liquidity management is an essential requirement to ensure the proper functioning of credit institutions in order that they can meet their various obligations in a timely fashion as they fall due, while continuing to fund their day-to-day operations. In this way, depositors and other creditors of individual institutions can be assured that a credit institution’s commitments to them can be met. Robust liquidity management within individual institutions is also essential in order to maintain stability in the financial system as a whole.

The supervision of liquidity requirements for credit institutions licensed and operating in Ireland is primarily a matter for the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator within the legislative and policy framework laid down by the Minister for Finance in the context of their overall responsibility, respectively, for financial stability and the prudential supervision of credit institutions. The Minister for Finance has no role in the oversight of the liquidity of individual credit institutions. If the Senator is in possession of any information to suggest a credit institution has breached its liquidity requirements, I invite him to bring the matter to the direct attention of the Financial Regulator, if he has not already done so.

The Financial Regulator imposes quantitative and qualitative standards for liquidity for all credit institutions that it supervises, be they credit institutions operating in the domestic market or those operating in international markets. These standards are outlined in the Financial Regulator’s document, Requirements for the Management of Liquidity Risk, and have been formally imposed as a condition on the licence of all credit institutions. The Financial Regulator also has a role in monitoring the functioning of liquidity within branches of credit institutions operating in Ireland where these are supervised by their home country regulator. The Financial Regulator maintains close communication with the regulators of other member states for this purpose.

Credit institutions are obliged to report weekly to the Financial Regulator on their liquidity requirements. All credit institutions are also obliged to be in compliance with the requirements on an ongoing basis. Breaches of liquidity requirements may be subject to proceedings under the Financial Regulator’s administrative sanctions procedure or to prosecution.

It is important to note that while the Financial Regulator monitors compliance with its liquidity requirements, each credit institution also has a direct obligation to put in place the necessary structures and controls to ensure the Financial Regulator’s requirements are met. In particular, the board of each credit institution is responsible for developing a strategy for the ongoing management of liquidity risk and for establishing a management structure to enable the institution to identify, measure, monitor, control and report on liquidity risk. Any breach of the quantitative liquidity requirements must be notified to the Financial Regulator immediately.

The importance of good liquidity management to the soundness of individual institutions and the financial system as a whole has been made abundantly clear from events throughout the recent financial crisis. The crisis clearly highlighted that, without good liquidity management principles and practices, financial institutions would quickly find themselves under stress and unable to meet their obligations. Internationally, the ample supply of liquidity in the years preceding the onset of the financial crisis in 2007 left many credit institutions unprepared for the shocks that occurred and many credit institutions struggled to maintain adequate liquidity throughout the financial crisis. For this reason, the European Central Bank and other central banks have been providing extraordinary liquidity support for financial institutions throughout the eurozone during the current financial crisis. These measures were introduced at the discretion of the ECB to deal with the liquidity crisis affecting the European-wide banking system. Irish credit institutions and many European credit institutions have obtained liquidity support provided by the bank. However, dependence on ECB lending has been significantly reduced, indicating that conditions in international financial markets have improved substantially and Irish credit institutions have benefited from improved funding conditions which has been reflected in reduced recourse by Irish banks to Eurosystem funding. The ECB has indicated publicly that it is engaging in the progressive, timely and gradual phasing out of the non-conventional measures which were introduced in response to the financial crisis but that, notwithstanding this, liquidity support will remain for months to come. As such, there are no negative implications in the medium term from the announced “phasing out” measures.

Arising from the lessons of the financial crisis, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision has recently issued proposals for international minimum quantitative liquidity requirements to enhance banks’ approach to the management of their liquidity requirements and build up their resilience to future shocks. These standards will in due course be implemented in Ireland through EU legislation. The proper management of liquidity, in line with the requirements of the Financial Regulator, is, in the first instance, the responsibility of credit institutions and their boards. Credit Institutions are expected to meet these requirements on an ongoing basis and any breach should be immediately brought to the attention of the Financial Regulator.


Senator David Norris: I accept the Minister of State is not qualified in this area but her reply is a most astonishing statement. Of course, there is ministerial responsibility in this matter. I would not have been permitted by the Cathaoirleach to raise it if there had been no ministerial responsibility. That comment should be struck from the Minister of State’s speech. I know this is not her area but I would like her to take the message back to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, that there is ministerial responsibility in this matter.

This is a grossly serious matter which has been reported to the Financial Regulator. A man has lost his job as a result. He honourably resigned. The degree of breach was 40 times the accepted margin. This is a disaster. If we are not prepared to face the issue and investigate it when it has been laid before the House, there is absolutely no hope for the financial system or its reputation worldwide.

I accept and understand it is not possible to anticipate what I will say in a debate; therefore, I will excuse the reply on that basis. However, I have made very clear requests that this matter should be examined. How can the Finance Regulator investigate himself? He was in breach of his responsibility. That is the first point. The second is that the bank must be pursued and that the honour of the man whose reputation has been traduced must be restored. It not too much to ask in this Parliament that this should happen. I want the process to start tonight. I gather from the Minister of State who is nodding that she will undertake to do so, for which I thank her