Order of Business - 25th May 2010

Order of Business - 25th May 2010

Senator David Norris: I would like an update on the progress of the Civil Partnership Bill. It is in the process of being amended and there have been worrying reports in the newspapers about the amendments that have apparently been accepted by Cabinet as a result of which the creation of a joint tenancy on behalf of civil partners would be exempt from court fees and property registration fees but not stamp duty.
I received correspondence on what this means and I will describe one case in particular. A couple, two men, have been together for 11 years and their property is now worth €1 million. Stamp duty of 7%, which is €70,000, would have to be paid if the partners register the house as a joint tenancy. This is where I came in; ten years ago I raised a similar issue about a couple living in west Cork, where one of them died and the other was charged €250,000 for the privilege of living in the house in which he had been born. That is a disgrace. What is the Government at, mucking around? As a result of its cack-handedness people will be worse off after the publication and passage of the Bill. In other words, discrimination will increase. The very angry person in the case I described wrote to state he does not give a crap about getting married in a church and does not want to adopt babies. He wants the State - which he describes as a joke of a republic - to treat his partner and him fairly in terms of tax and civil rights, and wonders what the Government is thinking about. Will the Leader to take this message back?
A series of new jobs, up to 20 over the coming years, will be created by a Wicklow firm, profitsflow.com, supported by Wicklow Enterprise. With the advent of cloud computing it makes it a reality for small and medium sized business throughout Ireland to have access to mobile computing, and this is very good. The company has a reseller in the United Kingdom and is about to appoint a reseller in the United States. This is very important because it has been established by two young people from the high-tech industry who have shown one can go against the flow and one can create employment even in these very difficult circumstances

Order of Business - 20th May 2010

Order of Business - 20th May 2010
Senator David Norris: Many years ago I was involved in having references to sexual orientation and membership of the Traveller community included in legislation, particularly the Incitement to Hatred Bill. In that context, I raise a worrying matter, about which I ask the Leader to talk to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Recently a Facebook page entitled, “setting aside Monday afternoons to hunt knackers”, was created, to which, I am sorry to say, a large number of Irish people have signed up. It includes the following comments. One contributor, a Mr. O’Keeffe, said, “I was in contact with the association of killing knackers and they said that if it got enough support they would try to organise an Abbeyfeale hunt, whereby for one week Abbeyfeale knackers would be, more or less, a free for all. Abbeyfeale knackers are common, though, and not worth much.” That met with this response from a Mr. O’Sullivan, “Worth much? No knacker is worth anything, Dan. That is why they must be flushed out like rats.” I understand this website which has been up for more than one month is in the process of being taken down, which I welcome. However, there is another one, which is “Pádraig Nally, Ireland’s greatest legend”. Some of the language used on the site is rather unfortunate, but it is appropriate that people should know about it. One person asks, “What do you do when you see a smelly knacker running at you with half a head?” The answer is, “Stop laughing, reload and shoot,” which received the reply, “Fuck tinkers.” That is not appropriate and I hope this will be taken down. It is worrying that there seems to be a wave. There is an office circular being circulated with pictures of some very beautiful young women in elaborate dresses attending weddings in the Travelling community. Those who receive the circular are invited to substitute the face of someone in their office who has recently got married for one of the faces in the pictures. I deplore this and some action should be taken against it.

I agree with Senator Twomey on the worrying situation of a man with 75 convictions who while out on bail assisted in the murder of two perfectly decent young Polish men. I also support Senator O’Toole in his remarks about the helpline for people with missing children. I raised this matter on the Adjournment some time ago and was recently contacted by the man who had brought it to my attention and whose sister had gone missing. I was told there were some bureaucratic difficulties, but I understand these are now in the process of being overcome. It is very important to support such families and that the State support the helpline.

Private Members Debate on Construction Contracts Bill 2010 - Second Stage - 19th May 2010

Private Members Debate on Construction Contracts Bill 2010 - Second Stage -19th May 2010
Senator David Norris: I compliment Senator Quinn on the initiative he has shown in introducing this legislation, which is timely and important. In light of current difficulties, everything possible must be done to facilitate the return of the construction industry to a state of good health.

The Bill addresses a specific problem, namely, instances where main contractors or developers are paid but where those who subcontract with them do not receive payment. It provides for notice of intention to withhold payment, a speedy and cost-effective dispute resolution mechanism which would operate on the basis of adjudication, and the right to suspend work for non-payment.

I also welcome the Government amendment. This is one of the occasions on which I am happy to see an amendment from the Government, particularly as it is positive rather than destructive in nature. Too often at Private Members’ time we are obliged to engage in ding-dong battles across the floor of the House. On this occasion, the significant element of the amendment is the final phrase which states that Seanad Éireann “resolves that the Construction Contracts Bill 2010 be deemed to be read a second time this day 5 months”. This indicates the Government is serious and intends to progress the legislation through the House.

A practical and observable difficulty in respect of this matter arises from the fact that there is a kind of hierarchy of payment which exists. At the top of the pile is the main contractor and then there is a series of tiers within the supply chain. In positive circumstances, there is a trickle-down effect. However, the money does not always reach the most vulnerable people in the lower reaches of the hierarchy to which I refer. The very real problems people encounter include the improper retention of money. Funds are often held back because the main contractor wants to massage its own cashflow. This happens at the expense of those to whom it subcontracted work.

Manufactured, false or spurious reasons are also often offered in respect of the withholding of money. For example, a tiny defect which might not be significant in the context of the overall project might be used as an excuse and a justification for withholding payment. Such behaviour is plainly wrong and unfair. At present there is no provision for the making of proper staged payments and this, as Senator Quinn pointed out, can lead to insolvency and redundancies. These are the last things that are needed in the current climate.

Sections 7 to 9, inclusive, are the three most important in the Bill. I did not rely on my own intuition or intelligence — which, in the context of this matter, could be weak — in identifying this fact. I relied instead on a very good briefing document I received from elements within the construction industry. I am not sure but previous speakers may already have placed on the record that which I am about to say.

Section 7 deals with the notice of intention to withhold payment. It suggests that subcontractors should be placed on notice that the main contractor proposes to withhold payment in order that they might take whatever action they regard as being appropriate. The section states that it should not be possible to withhold money without two key factors first being addressed, namely, that prior notice has been given and that sufficient, specific and justifiable reasons have been provided to the person at the lower end of the chain with regard to why the money is being withheld.

Section 8 provides for adjudication, which is important. It is different from the normal method of arbitration. It is straightforward, simple and quick. It is essential to have speed in deciding the amount that should be paid by one party on an interim basis. This will have the benefit of helping with cash flow difficulties. In most commercial contracts, if there is a dispute over payment, a party can go to the courts to seek enforcement, but most construction contracts provide for alternative methods of dispute resolution, including conciliation, arbitration and so on. They may lead eventually to justice, but they have two cardinal difficulties. They tend to be slow and expensive. For example, payments can be delayed for several years while the matter is in arbitration and the contracts also give an opportunity to the main contractor to manufacture causes of dispute. Once legal advice is sought, the reasons multiply. Following adjudication, the parties can continue to conciliate, arbitrate or litigate the ultimate resolution of a dispute. The adjudication is binding in the interim and enforceable and the parties can then go to the courts to seek enforcement.

I am sure Senator Quinn has examined what happens in other jurisdictions. The nearest is the United Kingdom which provides a good justification for such legislation. It addressed this situation in legislation within the past few years, as a result of which cash flow throughout the entire industry has improved dramatically and 90% of disputes are settled at adjudication or shortly thereafter. Since the enactment of the construction Bill in the United Kingdom, there have been 18,000 adjudications, of which only 300 have ended up in court, a small proportion.

Some provisions could be included in the Bill such as the right to payment by instalment, except for a project of less than 45 calendar days; a statutory requirement for an adequate mechanism for determining sums due, including default provisions where the mechanism is not agreed by the parties; a statutory requirement for agreements on the dates on which payments, including the final payment, will be made and default periods such as five and 17 days, respectively; and the prohibition of payment provisions which are conditional on receipt of payment from others, in other words, where the sub-contractor is put in the position where he or she has to collect on behalf of the main contractor. The Bill provides adequate protection. Some Members said the Prompt Payment of Accounts Act 1997 would be useful and could be applicable in this regard, but it is not for the reasons I outlined. The construction industry is different. Work is carried out in advance of payment and, as Senator Quinn mentioned, when the building is erected, it cannot be dismantled to recover the value of the bricks, the plumbing, the ground work and so on.

The introduction of an independent, impartial adjudicator would be positive. The United Kingdom has the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996; New Zealand, the Construction Contracts Act 2002; Malaysia, the Building and Construction Industry Payments and Adjudication Act, which is pending; Singapore, the Building and Construction Industry Security Act 2004; and five states in Australia have introduced similar legislation. We are moving in a direction in which the rest of the world has seen fit to move and I applaud Senator Quinn for his foresight in producing this valuable Bill. In a week that is almost void of Government legislation, it is remarkable that a Senator from the Independent benches has introduced a Bill that has received a welcome on all sides of the House.

Statements on the Ombudsman for Children Report on Children First Guidelines - 19th May 2010

Statements on the Ombudsman for Children Report on Children First Guidelines - 19th May 2010
Senator David Norris: The first thing that needs to be said is that we in the Oireachtas are indebted to the Office of the Ombudsman for Children for producing this report, which is a highly significant development. It is not entirely adversely critical of the Government but it does provide a useful foundation for progress. I hope it can be dealt with in a non-partisan way. We must discuss this in the light of tragic events such as the death of Daniel McAnaspie, but I do not think we should make political capital out of it. I was taken aback to hear the usual old ding-dong across the floor, into which the question of moving a writ for by-elections was introduced. This is irrelevant and represents an attempt by both sides, but especially Senator Butler, to make capital out of the subject. It shows that real concern for the welfare of children is not the priority people pretend it is. We are still becoming bogged down by talk of by-elections and so on. That is regrettable.

I agree with the statement of Senator Alex White, whose contribution I watched from my office, that it would be useful if we had the time to go through the report line by line. This is one of the occasions on which a lack of sufficient time is a problem. We had 15 minutes of waffle from the Leader of the House this morning which was completely irrelevant to everything, but we get seven minutes each to talk about this report. When we discussed the Ryan report, I went through the report line by line and had to gabble, as did Senator White. We need time if we wish to take such reports seriously.

I was interested but not surprised to hear the position of the Iona Institute being so articulately placed on the record by one of my university panel colleagues. To drag a defence of Cardinal Brady into this discussion is, to my mind, on the margins. That said, I would welcome an opportunity to discuss that.

The report is not unremittingly negative. I notice the Ombudsman begins:

Some of the conclusions in this report are positive. It is recognised that substantial efforts have been made at various times since 1999 to implement Children First.

The interesting phrase here is “at various times”, which suggests a lack of consistency and raises the question of the priority attached to it. The other aspect of the report I found helpful was the Ombudsman’s references to the office of the Minister, rather than to a particular Minister. She does not personalise the matter or make accusations against this Minister of State, who is in fact a decent, intelligent and caring person. The Minister of State himself indicated, in the section of his speech that I heard in my office, that the majority of criticism covered the period 2003 to 2008. It is recognised that efforts are now being made to implement the recommendations after a considerable time.

There is a significant lack of what one might call joined up thinking in this area. For example — this is critical — there is the lack of a 24-hour service. This means people cannot find out if children are covered by the child protection notification service. Unfortunately, crises do not neatly and obligingly arise during office hours; they will often happen in the early hours of the morning, or at some other very inconvenient time or at the weekend. In this situation where we are often talking about crisis intervention we need a full 24-hour service. I would have thought that this was inarguable.

As a member of three trade unions who supports the trade union movement and the right of every worker to join a trade union, I was saddened by the comments of the Ombudsman for Children on the industrial relations issue involved. There was such an issue because IMPACT was concerned about what it saw as an extra burden being placed on the shoulders of workers by the implementation of the Children First guidelines. It became involved in negotiations with the Eastern Regional Health Authority, ERHA, and had a prioritisation work agreement, but it did not include implementing the Children First guidelines. I have criticised politicians in this House for not having the welfare of children as their first priority and I am sad to say it seems some of the trade unions which I greatly admire also do not have it as a priority. They should.

Another issue — I am not sure whether it has been mentioned — is the disproportionate difficulty encountered by children of asylum seekers or asylum seeking children. A much higher ratio of such children disappeared from the protection of the HSE. I recall raising this issue on a number of occasions. At least one of the children concerned turned up in a brothel, which is very worrying. If a child was placed in the protection of the State and they were not sufficiently supervised to prevent them from ending up in a brothel, that is a serious criticism of what is happening.

It could be said the Ombudsman for Children’s report is stating we are still failing in our responsibility to implement proper child protection systems. It is 11 years since Children First was introduced. It has been reviewed three times, but its recommendations and principles have never been consistently and fully implemented. I find this worrying. The most significant elements that are missing include a definition of abuse. The structures to enhance inter-agency co-operation at regional and local level have not been put in place or are discontinued. That is a classic example which indicates the lack of joined up thinking. Poor record-keeping is also mentioned. There was an analysis undertaken in counties Cork and Kerry which showed that 75% of files had no record of the outcome. That is absurd. Surely, the outcome is one of the most significant aspects.

The Minister of State said in a statement picked up by the newspapers that he welcomed the statements — I would expect this gentlemanly Minister of State to say this — and that the recommendations made in the report would be reflected in an implementation framework which was being developed. Can he give us any indication of the timeframe involved because it is important that we know when that it be done? I was glad he mentioned that many of the findings were constructive and that he could work with them. It is worrying that there are findings of unsound administration, bad practice and a lack of joined up thinking, but we have a decent Minister of State and if we can keep the partisan elements out and keep our minds focused on the welfare of children, we will get somewhere.

It is not particularly relevant to drag in, so to speak, the Archbishop of Armagh, Cardinal Brady, but I accept it is not appropriate for any institution, be it the State or the church, to abuse children. What is sauce for the goose is definitely sauce for the gander. I have no difficulty with this, but that is a matter for debate on another day and there are other aspects which will not be so pleasing to the Iona Institute mentality when I raise them in the House.

Order of Business - 19th May 2010

Order of Business - 19th May 2010
Senator David Norris: Following on what Senator Fitzgerald said about the need whistleblower protection, I propose a change to the Order of Business. I suggest that, immediately following the conclusion of the Order of Business, we take motion No. 17 on the Order Paper which was brought forward by me and a number of other colleagues. It addresses the remarks of the Director of Public Prosecutions and particularly the question of whistleblowers. I raised on the Adjournment the very serious matter of dishonesty on the part of one of the biggest banks in the IFSC, in the massaging and non-revelation of defects in liquidity ratios. It received very little publicity initially, but then a large article which did not refer to the debate in the Seanad was printed in The Irish Times, while on Sunday a very incisive article appeared in The Sunday Business Post. The story was also taken up in Süddeutsche Zeitung. The reason I raise the issue today is that the person who was my informant on that occasion effectively lost his job as a result. We have no whistleblower protection and should address the matter immediately. In the Dáil the Labour Party produced a Bill to tackle the issue. We could discuss that Bill this morning.: These days I rarely speak about the subject of homosexuality, either domestically or internationally. However, my attention has been drawn to a case in Malawi, a country to which we give large sums of money in aid. Two young men, Mr. Steven Monjeza and Mr.Tiwonge Chimbalanga, held a public ceremony of commitment in December. They were arrested at the end of that month and accused of gross indecency under the British statute that we have abolished in this country. There has been an attempt to subject them to forcible anal examination which has been described by Amnesty International as contravening the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. This is a very human story and they are extraordinarily courageous people, to whom I have sent a message of support. Tiwonge said: “I love Steven so much. If people or the world cannot give me the chance and freedom to continue with him as my lover, then I am better off to die here in prison. Freedom without him is useless and meaningless.” His partner, Steven, said: “We have come a long way and even if our family relatives are not happy, I will never stop loving Tiwonge.” They deserve our support. I ask the Leader to contact the Department of Foreign Affairs to ask it to intervene and express our strong condemnation of this violation of every human principle of decency through the torture and imprisonment of these young men who have so courageously stood up for the principle of human love.


An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has made his point.

Adjournment Debate on Depleted Uranium - 18th May 2010
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State. The matter I want to raise concerns depleted uranium and its use in weapons systems. I raise it in a very positive context. Earlier in this session a very useful Bill was introduced by Senator Boyle to ban uranium weapons. This was in the aftermath of Belgium becoming the first country in the world to introduce such a ban. We are in a useful position because we do not actually have any of the resource referred to. Therefore, we can take an ethical position that would not cause any disruption to employment. We can give a moral lead.

I raise this issue in the context of the commitment of the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche. I refer to his very forceful and powerful intervention in the previous debate. He said the use of the weapons in question was cynical and that Ireland was committed to doing what it could. In the context of the successful moves made by Ireland and other countries to have cluster munitions banned, the banning of depleted uranium weapons is the next stage in the battle against the use of really vicious weapons.

There was recently a briefing session in the AV room given by Mr. Doug Weir, co-ordinator of the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons. He was brought here by AfrI. He gave a very stark, clear, logical and precise outline of the dangers posed by uranium. Depleted uranium is nuclear waste and comes from the nuclear industry, in which uranium is used in power generation and experiments. It is very unstable and can produce a self-sustaining series of nuclear reactions if neutrons are fired at it. This releases huge amounts of energy and is the reason uranium-235, in particular, is used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

Depleted uranium is the waste from which a lot of other material has been drained. It is a chemically toxic, strongly radioactive compound. When it was first manufactured in the 1940s by the United States and the USSR which were involved in their nuclear weapons programmes, they found they had a by-product which had no use. Subsequently, in the 1970s, it emerged that the Soviet army was using armoured plating on tanks that was not capable of being pierced by conventional weapons. The Pentagon discovered that it was possible to penetrate this strengthened armour by using projectile weapons containing depleted uranium. The difficulty in this regard relates to the radioactive nature of uranium and the fact that when it explodes against a hard surface, it creates a fine dust.

The weapons to which I refer were first used extensively in the first Gulf War. The dust to which they give rise tends to be blown all over the place, especially in desert conditions, and gives rise to very serious health problems for those exposed. For example, this dust can get into one’s lungs and, from there, uranium compounds are deposited in one’s lymph nodes, bones, brain and testes. Hard targets that are hit and penetrated by depleted uranium weapons are usually surrounded by this dust which can travel several kilometres when it is suspended freely in air. Partially exploded depleted uranium weapons can be left buried in the ground.

The effects the dust to which I refer can have on people’s health are quite grim. Unfortunately, there is not time to list them in detail but I do have in my possession a list of academic papers on the subject. I will state, however, that normal functioning of the kidneys, brain, liver, heart and numerous other systems can be affected by exposure to uranium such as that to which I refer.

The uranium in question gives rise to alpha radiation which, when inhaled or ingested, is the most damaging form of ionising radiation known to man. Alpha radiation is very disruptive within the human body and leaves a trail of ionised free radicals that disrupt finely tuned cellular processes in its wake. This leads to genomic instability which is a precursor to cancer.

In every location where this material has been used, birth defects, cancers, etc. have resulted. The results of a study carried out in respect of 15,000 US veterans of the 1991 Gulf War, which were published in 2001, found that there was a doubling of the number of birth defects in the children of fathers who had been exposed. The increase in respect of children born to mothers who had been exposed was threefold. The United Kingdom, whose personnel were also exposed to uranium, established the Pensions Appeals Tribunal Service which attributed birth defect claims from February 1991 Gulf War combat veterans to poisoning resulting from exposure to depleted uranium. An evidence trail has, therefore, been established.

In 2001, doctors in Serb-run hospitals reported numbers of patients suffering from malignant diseases and an increase of 200% in the incidence of such diseases. Again, while I have in my possession numerous scientific papers which underpin what I am saying, I do not have time to read them all into the record and, in any event, doing so could prove quite tedious.

It is astonishing that the World Health Organisation, WHO, an agency of the UN, and other groups appear to have distanced themselves from the evidence to which I refer by stating that nothing concrete had been found. The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, came to the same conclusion and queried the impact of depleted uranium weapons. These agencies are mere functionaries of the UN and I am pleased to inform the Minister of State that the General Assembly of the UN refused to accept what they stated. The General Assembly insisted that further reports be compiled and passed a resolution highlighting the health hazards to which depleted uranium weapons can give rise. The International Committee of the Red Cross stated that the effects these weapons could have did not have to be proved and that the mere possibility that they could cause serious damage to people’s health should lead to caution being exercised in respect of their development or use.

The Prohibition of Depleted Uranium Weapons Bill 2009 has had its Second Stage reading. I hope this legislation will soon pass into law. I urge the Minister of State to ensure progress is made in this regard. To date, only the United Kingdom and the United States have used depleted uranium weapons. They are manufactured in the United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, China, South Korea and South Africa. The countries which are believed to have depleted uranium weapons in their arsenals are the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Russia, Belarus, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan, Thailand, China, India and Taiwan.

The situation in respect of depleted uranium weapons is highly dangerous and their legal status is not completely clear. There is a moral argument against their use. The use of those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required is outlawed. The prohibition to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering and the principles of precaution and proportionality must also be taken into account.


An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator is running out of time.


Senator David Norris: If the Leas-Chathaoirleach would be kind enough to indulge me, I am about to reach a conclusion. The position with regard to Bosnia-Herzegovina is disastrous. NATO continues to refuse to provide co-ordinates in respect of unexploded depleted uranium weapons. Some of these weapons are buried over 1 m beneath the surface of agricultural land on which vegetables are still grown. The relevant ministry in Serbia put in place a decontamination programme, provided investment and committed to the location and disposal of these weapons. That programme has proved successful.

I reiterate the requests that have been made to the Government by the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons, ICBUW. These requests include the drafting of an internationally binding uranium weapons convention that would ban the use, sale, production, testing and transport of uranium weapons, the destruction of existing stockpiles, the provision of money and expertise by the international community for decontamination, and support, medical care and environmental monitoring for communities affected by the use of these weapons.

My final point relates to the disastrous, disgraceful, illegal, immoral, unjustifiable and barbarous attacks that were launched against the civilian population of Iraq. The latter is the country which has been worst affected by the use of depleted uranium weapons. When one sees a map detailing the various sites where such weapons are to be found, it is as if one is looking at a country that has caught the measles as a result of the number of red dots in evidence. Iraq is a desert country in which the effects of the dust are magnified. We are aware of the extent of the injuries suffered, the long-term illnesses acquired, the birth defects, the leukaemia, the cancers, etc. This is a catastrophe about which the world is saying nothing. Owing to the fact that the political situation in Iraq is so chaotic, those countries which brutally assaulted it and exposed its civilian population to radiation are not taking action. It is very unlikely that the Government in Iraq could act in the same effective way as its counterpart in Serbia to address this matter.

For the reasons I have outlined, it is very important that Ireland should continue its courageous campaign to rid the world of these filthy weapons. It must be remembered that a similar campaign in respect of cluster munitions proved successful.

Deputy John Moloney: I am taking this matter on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs who, unfortunately, cannot be present. The Government carefully follows the debate on possible health and environmental hazards from depleted uranium. We share the concerns raised at international fora, including in the European Parliament and at the UN, and agree that further studies are required to assess the potential risks involved. Ireland voted in favour of resolutions 62/30 and 63/26 at the UN in 2007 and 2008. These resolutions requested the Secretary General to seek the views of member states and relevant international organisations on the effects of the use of armaments and munitions containing depleted uranium. The Secretary General has issued one report and will submit an updated report later this year prior to further consideration of the issue by the General Assembly in late 2010.

Ireland submitted its national report on this issue to the UN in 2009. This report confirms that Ireland has never possessed any weapons, armaments or ammunition containing depleted uranium. It also states that Ireland shares the concerns raised at the General Assembly about the potential risks related to such use of depleted uranium. The report confirms that while there is no practical method of testing people who may have been exposed to depleted uranium, thorough medical examinations are carried out on all Defence Forces personnel returning from deployment overseas. These include tests intended to detect signs of the disease processes most likely to arise in cases of contamination by depleted uranium. To date, no evidence of an unusual incidence of disease has been found.


Senator David Norris: That is not true.


Deputy John Moloney: While a number of studies have been conducted by relevant international organisations, no definitive conclusion has been drawn on potential adverse effects of the use of armaments and ammunition containing depleted uranium on human health and the environment. Ireland will continue to closely monitor developments in the analysis of the risks associated with the use of armaments and ammunition containing depleted uranium and welcomes the engagement of civil society, non-governmental organisations and the scientific community on the issue.

Regarding exposure to depleted uranium, there have been studies of the health of military personnel who saw action in the Gulf War in 1990 and 1991 and during the Balkan conflicts between 1994 and 1999. While it is not highly radioactive, depleted uranium is, nonetheless, a toxic metal and legitimate health concerns have arisen about its use on the battlefield. The studies carried out by international organisations have generally concluded that depleted uranium does not pose a significant radiological risk, while recommending various measures to reduce the potential health and environmental risks.

The World Health OrganiSation has noted that direct contact with depleted uranium metal, even prolonged, is unlikely to produce radiation-induced conditions or other effects. It has not identified long-term health consequences and has made a number of recommendations which Ireland fully supports. These include the monitoring and detection, following conflict, of levels of depleted uranium contamination in food and drinking water in affected areas where it is considered there is a reasonable possibility of significant quantities of depleted uranium entering groundwater or the food chain. Where justified and possible, clean-up operations in impact zones should be undertaken where qualified experts deem contamination levels to be unacceptable. Preventive measures should be taken where small children could be exposed to depleted uranium.

The UN Secretary General reported in 2008 on the views of member states and relevant international organisations and there will be a further report later this year. The report generally recognises the work done by the IAEA, the WHO and the United Nations Environment Programme in assessing the scale of the problem. It also points to the need for further studies and research to determine the impact of depleted uranium, as has the European Parliament.

The Department closely follows the valuable work of civil society on this issue. Officials from the Department met representatives of the International Campaign to Ban Uranium Weapons, ICBUW, in Dublin in June 2009 and again in both Dublin and New York in May 2010 and had very useful discussions. The Department communicated our view that to achieve an international ban, as they aspire to do, it would be necessary to conclusively establish the negative impact of depleted uranium on human health and the environment. Studies and work by reputable international organisations, including the WHO and the IAEA, will therefore be critical in quantifying the risks and conveying them internationally. The Government will continue to closely monitor the international debate on the issue.


Senator David Norris: I am glad the Minister of State carefully distanced himself from support of the content of the reply and made it clear that he was simply a puppet acting on behalf of the Minister. I would be surprised if the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, supports this attitude. I do not know what gobdaw produced this rubbish. The Minister of State said: “To date, no evidence of an unusual incidence of disease has been found.”


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


Senator David Norris: Would the Minister of State regard a 200% increase in cancers and birth defects as evidence? The US and UK armies and various military pension funds have all found this association and an international panel of scientists have absolutely——


An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator has raised these questions.


Senator David Norris: No, I have not.


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


Senator David Norris: In this country we are rightly concerned about low levels of radon which is one of the by-products of depleted uranium. What is the Minister of State’s response to Senator Boyle’s Bill? The Green Party is in government and most Fianna Fáil Members supported the legislation. The Minister provided clear support and would be horrified by the statement that depleted uranium does not pose a significant radiological risk. This is mealy-mouthed stuff. There is a huge body of evidence and the IAEA is committed to the production of nuclear energy, of which depleted uranium is a by-product. Therefore, it is scarcely a non-conflicted party. I hope the Department will continue its discussions with the international coalition to have depleted uranium weapons banned because the facts are on their side. I am astonished that anyone, however low the position he or she occupies in the Department, could come out with this rubbish.

Those are my questions. I am sure the Minister of State who is a good friend of the House and a stalwart Laois man will communicate them to the Minister and seek a strong response.


Deputy John Moloney: I thank the Senator at least for his final comment. On the question of whether I supported the proposed legislation to ban the use of depleted uranium, I reflected not only my own views but also those of the Minister. I reiterate that Ireland has never possessed any weapons——


Senator David Norris: Neither has Belgium and that did not stop it banning them.


Deputy John Moloney: I am not persuaded, therefore, that legislation to ban their use at this stage would add value. It is also important to note that we are awaiting scientific knowledge and support and if that evidence is received, that clearly will leave us in a different position. It cannot be taken that Ireland is sitting on the fence. That is far from the position. We have also been involved in talks in London and New York, including as recently as this month. As soon as the scientific evidence is received, Ireland will act.

Order of Business - 18th May 2010

Order of Business - 18th May 2010
Senator David Norris: I second the amendment to the Order of Business. It is very important to have debates on the economy. If the Minister is able to come to the House — I hope he will be able to come — we should discuss the ratings agencies. I have been talking about this and so have other colleagues and it has now belatedly come to the attention of the European Union. Hedge funds are going to be addressed by the European Union, belatedly. At the weekend I heard the Director of Public Prosecutions, James Hamilton, saying we needed legislative change, in fact, possibly even constitutional change. It is pathetic that the House has no legislation to consider for the whole week. We just have statements——


Senator Donie Cassidy: That is not true.


Senator David Norris: It is really disturbing. There may be a few little bits and pieces, some of which comes from the Independent benches. We are contributing legislatively this week at least as much, if not more, than the Government, and that is ludicrous.

I note Mr. Hamilton said we may need, in certain circumstances, to move white collar crime to non-jury courts with panels of expert judges because such cases could take a year and they contain very intricate matters. This is a worrying issue which needs to be addressed.

The Labour Party introduced a Bill in the other House so the work is already done and it is not a question of not having it drafted. That Bill should be put before the House to have it discussed. If the Government wishes, it can amend it.

I also raise a matter in which the “Liveline” programme, Joe Duffy’s show, has caught up at last with the Oireachtas. More than a year ago I raised in the House the question of NCP, the buccaneering clampers who go around fair cities clamping people on private land. A series of people have had the same experience I have had, a kind of a honey trap set up by the clampers in association with the proprietors of the building, with no real legislative framework and under which they charge any amount they dream up. They claim they have an appeals authority but one is appealing to NCP and of course they are very unlikely to give one anything back. This is a matter of widespread concern to citizens and it is spreading now to institutions. The United Kingdom introduced legislation to curb

Order of Business - 13th May 2010

Order of Business - 13th May 2010
Senator David Norris: May we have a debate on how we can maximise the resources available? I was at the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham last night for the O2 ability awards ceremony, an event which was really inspiring, at which people who had overcome difficulties were recognised. Companies benefit because of their immense loyalty and the immense energy and drive they bring to them. The awards scheme was founded by a remarkable woman, Caroline Casey. I am proud to sit in the Seanad beside Senator Quinn who received one of the major awards for the work he had done. As I listened to the description, I knew within two sentences that it was Senator Quinn who was being spoken about. The former President and a former Member of this House, Mrs. Mary Robinson, made a remarkable brief speech. She said that even in these difficult times there continued to be an undercurrent of positive thinking and talent. In other words, she was accentuating the positive. This idea is being exported to other European countries and, possibly, others in South America. This is something of which we can be deeply proud and we can be particularly proud that a Member of this House was so honoured last night.

I agree with my colleagues that we need a debate on the way we handle certain currency movements and the issue of cohesion in Europe. As I said the other day, historically, this is an inevitable process. It happened in the 19th century with the small German states. It started off as a Zollverein, a customs union with tax implications. It was purely economic but gradually led to the creation of the state of Germany. I would welcome this if it resulted in a positive union and something strong, strong enough, for example, to take on the ratings agencies on a global basis. I call for a debate on the ratings agencies because there is all-party support for an attempt to understand what they are doing and root out their evil practices. Sometimes in these difficult areas it is useful to find a poacher and turn him or her into a gamekeeper. Perhaps when we look at the ratings agencies and the malign influence they exert, we might contact somebody such as George Soros who most certainly was a poacher but who gambled disastrously against some of the major currencies. He knows how it is done and if we were to turn him on the ratings agencies, there would be fireworks.

Statements on Common Agricultural Policy - 12th May 2010

Statements on Common Agricutural Policy - 12th May 2010
Senator David Norris: I believe I have already congratulated the Minister of State, Deputy Connick, but if I have not had that opportunity, I do so now and welcome him to the House. I am particularly glad he is present because, approximately one week ago, a very interesting meeting on safe food was organised by our colleague, Senator Buttimer, with John Dardis, the head political person in Safe Food Ireland, which is a North-South body. We discussed some of the issues around traceability and the impact of good farm products on the Irish diet and people’s health. I know this is an issue in which the Minister of State has a particular interest.

Some people expressed surprise that I should speak about agriculture but we all have our roots in the bog. My grandfather inherited three encumbered farms and tried to make a living out of farming. I know something about the hazards of that particular way of life.

I thank the IFA for the very interesting briefing it gave. I will not rehearse the entire thing because I am sure Senators have put much of it on the record. In my experience, farmers are direct and simple people who are capable of giving clear expression to complex ideas. I just met a group of them in the visitors’ bar where I was looking for a group of taxi people who wanted to brief me and said they would see me there. I did not meet them but I met the farmers who had some interesting things to say to which I will refer presently.

For all the excellence of the IFA’s briefing, it over-estimates my intelligence in terms of the acronyms involved and the very dense language. I puzzled myself in trying to reach an accommodation with what is very complex language. It stated that the two central issues for it are maintaining the real value of the national envelope covering both single farm payments and rural development which is worth €1.7 billion per year. I am sure there is an easier way to express that or a way for it to give a glossary of these kinds of terms.

I can quite easily comprehend the next issue, which is that for individual farmers, the key issue is securing the full single farm payment and continuing to pay it on a historical basis. When one gets into the substance of the document, however, there is a lot about various axes, pillar two, flexibility within member states and so on. The idea of a single farm payment modulation could be expressed simply. I am a supporter of the society for the protection of plain English and suggest it would be useful in dealing with briefings for Members of the Oireachtas if the IFA kept it as simple as possible because not everybody has a direct connection with farming matters.

I support the CAP and the Minister in his entry into the current round of negotiations. I support, in particular, subsidies which are accurately targeted and do not negatively impinge on the developing world. There is a balance to be struck because some of the agricultural policies of the European Union have been perceived as having a negative impact on countries which are sometimes described as the Third World. In conscience, we need to ensure as far as possible that this does not happen.

In a troubled and difficult world, it is very important to maintain the agriculture sector. It has had a very difficult time. Throughout the past year to 18 months, a succession of farming groups have received cuts in their wages even before the real impact of the crash, and I am sure the Minister of State knows that because he will have met some of these people. For example, I have no idea how sheep farmers continue to live on the dwindling returns they get for very heavy work and substantial investment. I do not believe anybody in Leinster House would be prepared to work for those margins.

The other significant factor is the dearth of young men and young women going into farming. It is no longer a tradition that is passed on or, in many areas, seen as a viable option for young people of talent, which it should be. We should support young people in every way possible to ensure they go into the industry and continue the tradition of farming. That would guarantee a stable rural society and food security in the future for the citizens of Ireland. That may very well become an important item in the programme.

We need to look at sustainable food production, especially in a manner that is environmentally sustainable. We should brand and promote the excellence of Irish products, in particular Irish beef. We do not use particularly intensive methods and we are closer to the natural rhythm of life. We do not use chemicals, hormones and so on to the degree which other countries do, including Brazil. I congratulate the farmers’ lobby on having had the initiative to go to Brazil to investigate what is happening, to go to the farms and to illustrate on the Saturday morning farming programme on RTE that the traceability of Brazilian beef scarcely exists. At least in Ireland, we can be secure and trace our major food products, including beef.

I wish to raise the concerns of my friends of approximately 15 minutes ago. I was looking for taxi men but instead I found councillors from County Limerick. I did not know at the time they were councillors and I still do not know to which party they belong, if any.


Deputy Seán Connick: They were from my party.


Senator David Norris: They were the Minister of State’s lot. That is fine by me. I am not prejudiced at all. I am totally politically promiscuous, as the Minister of State knows. I have friends in all parties and do not believe I have too many enemies in any of them.

These people were involved in beef farming, both dairy and meat production. The point they made was that the new grading system introduced by the EU seriously prejudices their interests. They used a certain amount of technical jargon which I complained about in regard to the briefing from the IFA. One fellow could see that I was a bit dazzled and he said he would put it simply. He said that if he turned up at the mart with a lorry with 15 animals in it, in the old days he got more or less the same price for the lot. He said that now the grading system has become so minute, particularised and sophisticated, he would get 12 different prices for the 15 animals. This makes it difficult for the farmer to organise his budget. This is information I have received by accident direct from the coalface today. We need to review the system of grading.

Having mentioned Brazilian farming methods, I will comment briefly on American farming methods because they serve as a warning for Ireland where farming is a great tradition, including in my family. The United States has moved away from small farms and small farmers hardly exist any longer. What one has are corporations and enterprises that are quoted on the New York Stock Exchange, vast ranches, highly artificial methods of production and tasteless beef. Chicken, on the other hand, sometimes tastes of fish meal. When one puts a forkful of it into one’s mouth one thinks one is eating cod, which is most unpleasant. One also has watery eggs and there is little in terms of guarantees.

Where intensive farming is used — this is particularly true of the poultry industry as opposed to the beef industry — the corporations operate a high security system and will not allow investigation by members of animal welfare organisations because they are ashamed of the practices used. This is not only a matter of humanity and dealing with our relatives down the DNA chain. Animals are our relatives, have feelings and deserve respect. It is not only a matter of showing respect for the rights of our fellow creatures but also of the effect the practices in question have on the quality and taste of animals. We must be aware of the American approach which has squeezed out small farmers and created huge ranches. I would hate to see this happen here as it would be bad for agriculture, production, consumers and, most certainly, rural society.

The Minister framed this debate in the context of a European Union budget review and the new EU financial perspective for 2014 to 2020. This makes it an important discussion. The Minister also committed himself to an objective that is dear to my heart, namely, the preservation of family farming in Europe. There is, however, a political dimension to this issue. If that were not the case, the matter would be redundant for those who have a view of farming at one remove. We are all interested in the political dimension and support the Minister of State, Deputy Connick, and his senior colleague in what they are doing. They have worked politically to create a support network among other Ministers in Europe for a strong and properly resourced Common Agricultural Policy after 2013. I was heartened to read in the Minister’s contribution that, after the meeting of the group of 22 like-minded EU Agriculture Ministers in Paris in December, there was a feeling of cohesion. In other words, we have allies in Europe with whom we can work in the interests of European agriculture.

As I stated, there are a number of significant elements to this issue on which the Minister will have been briefed. He will also have been told by my colleagues about the importance of rural development funding, young farmers and sustainable food production, about which I have spoken.

The Brazilians are among the world’s major exporters of beef and the European Union is the largest importer of Brazilian beef in the world. This has an impact on our agricultural sector and, through deforestation in the Amazon basin, on the environment. Having had the privilege of visiting the Amazon basin, I have seen its beauty and remarkable capacity for sustaining life in all its forms. It is a very important resource in terms of drugs, plant life and so forth. The cattle sector is responsible for 80% of deforestation in the basin. This is a further reason for Ireland to sustain its beef industry, even if it is at the expense of our neighbours, albeit not very close neighbours, in Brazil.

I commend the Minister. All sides in the House will support positive moves. I hope that in this troubled and difficult world, we will take wise and judicious measures to secure a supply of good food, encourage agriculture and ensure young people enter the farming sector.

Order of Business - 12th May 2010

Order of Business - 12th May 2010
Senator David Norris: I welcome the decision of the European Investment Bank to make a loan of €500 million available for the development of metro north. This is a very positive move which I think the House will welcome, especially since the idea was originally given legislative form in this Chamber. It is important that we do this now because the money will be comparatively cheap, labour will secured be at a reasonable cost and the project will provide desperately needed employment. I am very pleased that this is happening.

Senator Boyle referred to the disturbances that took place outside Leinster House last night. There is much justifiable anger and pain among the public and among all sections and supporters of all parties which needs expression. It is regrettable, however, that a small number of people, some of whom, according to radio reports, were wearing balaclavas, tried to take control of the initiative. I was supposed to speak at the meeting. I spoke at the press conference and have no regrets for having done so. I attempted to get out but found that I was locked in. I asked the officials if it would be of any help if I went outside to say a few words to try to calm things down, but they said they did not think it would help——


(Interruptions).

An Cathaoirleach: Please, Members.


Senator David Norris: I accepted their advice. I went back to my office and cleared my desk. My participation was not important but the event was. I listened this morning on radio to Vincent Browne who felt the response of the gardaí involved had been proportionate. A woman said she had attended many demonstrations and had always been impressed by the behaviour of gardaí. They had always been friendly, helpful and protective of the women and children involved. She had been horrified to see gardaí being attacked, beaten and punched and their hats thrown on the ground. It was not a very serious affray, but it was dangerous. A woman said she would have liked to have got in to pull the Minister, Deputy Harney’s hair out or something like that. Such behaviour is not appropriate. I understand there will be further marches and hope I will have an opportunity to speak at them. I hope, however, that the organisers will provide for efficient marshalling because while there needs to be a public venting of anger, it should be done in an orderly way so as not to degrade democracy in this country.

Order of Business - 11th May 2010

Order of Business - 11th May 2010
Senator David Norris: I agree with my colleagues who welcomed the massive intervention of the EU in the form of its financial rescue package. The position is serious. If one considers the figures in terms of public debt expressed as a percentage of GDP, Greece is No. 1 at 124.9% and Ireland is No. 4. However, if one examines other figures, such as the budget deficit expressed as a percentage of GDP, Ireland unfortunately has the lead position at twice the European average. It is a worrying situation.

We should also consider having another general economic debate. The Leader has promised the House rolling debates. There is an inevitable logic to a degree of centralisation, harmony and political concentration within Europe. This is the lesson of history. It occurred with Prussia where a customs union preceded political and financial union.

I hope we will find an opportunity to take No. 15 of the non-Government motions on the Order Paper in the name of myself, Senator O’Toole and the Fine Gael Party regarding the rating agencies. It is open to the Labour Party, the Green Party and Fianna Fáil to sign up to our motion, as we all agree on this matter.

Archbishop Ryan is a courageous and decent man.


Senator Nicky McFadden: Martin.


Senator David Norris: I beg the House’s pardon. Archbishop Martin is a courageous and decent man. It is difficult to hear him say he is disheartened and that there are forces within the church. We know there are forces from yesterday’s newspapers, according to which Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna stated that one of the principal officers of the church, perhaps Cardinal Sodano, had inhibited the inquiry into Cardinal Groer of Vienna and the molestation of young priests in an academy in Vienna. This was shocking. Archbishop Martin is right and decent people in the church deserve support.

Will the Leader draw to the Government’s attention the fact that Adams’ auctioneers just down the road from here will, at 5 p.m. on 18 May, hold an auction of important documents relating to the Famine? On Sunday, Murrisk in County Mayo will hold a commemoration of the Famine, one of the most devastating events in this country’s history. The documents originated in a solicitor’s office and I am unsure as to who will gain from them. Some of them are rather expensive. They are a moving record of the tragedy. One document from Mount Blakeney in County Limerick states: “The potatoes are beginning to look very bad”. I am glad to see that a Church of Ireland clergyman appealed on behalf of an evicted tenant, but many other members of the clergy did not behave so well. This record should be in the possession of the State. I hope the letter from Sabrina Purcell, whose grandparents were touched by the Famine, will be acted upon by the owners of these letters and that they will be given to the people. I am also hoping the Government may be in a position to purchase at least some of them.

Motion on Ministerial Pensions - 5th May 2010

Motion on Ministerial Pensions - 5th May 2010
Senator David Norris: I will begin by outlining my credentials. I have never been a Minister and this is the only public office I have held. As I will not get a pension until I am gone from this House, I have nothing to gain and everything to lose by taking an unpopular position.

The motion before the House is a load of hypocritical political opportunism and populism. I do not think it is even going to work because the political parties missed the boat. I acknowledge that calls were made for leadership but such leadership should have come from a united front of politicians or at least within the relevant parties. The proposers of this motion know perfectly well, however, that they had to put a gun to the heads of half of the people in their own party to get them to volunteer. Do not underestimate the intelligence of the people. I would have been happy to join a demonstration of leadership by making whatever financial sacrifice was necessary because the people are bleeding but everyone must jump at the same time and make it clear the sacrifice is voluntary.

I commend Senator MacSharry on his courage. Although he beat me to the quote with John Waters, a previous article by that author brilliantly analysed the language used by English newspapers in their dishonest targeting of politicians. However, politicians also have a lot to answer for. They sold the pass because they are terrified of the media.


Senator Rónán Mullen: Hear, hear.


Senator David Norris: Last week I had a cup of coffee with a decent fellow from a Government party who I will not name. He had been contacted by a journalist about a big Fianna Fáil meeting which was held recently in Killarney. When asked whether he had attended any of the caucus meetings, the journalist responded that he did not have to go because he knew what Fianna Fáil meetings are like. That man wrote scathingly about the meeting. I have no idea whether the meeting was good or bad but one would not last long as a music or theatre critic without attending the performances under review. Unfortunately, when I asked my informant whether he would raise the issue in the House or lambaste the newspaper that printed this twaddle, he said he could not do so for fear of being skinned alive.

I do not always agree with Mr. Waters but he accurately described the way in which Emmet Stagg was hauled before a Star Chamber inquiry on “Morning Ireland” to explain why he received a weekly pension of €56 as if this show trial would rectify the economic situation. Mr. Waters wrote:

This show-trial was introduced by Áine Lawlor with a low bow towards “public fury”, which, she told us, showed “no sign of abating”. Later, in a conversation with an audibly queasy David Davin-Power, she said: “But I suppose equally there are a lot of people listening, and €56 a week, while €56 may not be a huge sum of money to the State, it’s a very big sum of money in their family’s incomes.” On such platitudes have been launched a dozen lynchings.

We can do nothing about the media except raise challenges. However, it is unwise for any group to inflame the already exacerbated feelings of the people which clearly need to be vented. People are on the threshold of bankruptcy or are losing their homes and jobs and they are suffering. However, we should be taking practical measures and it does no good to inflame the situation.

The people concdrned are very pious but I wonder if they ever read the New Testament. When I heard the debate about the pensions, I was immediately reminded of the parable of Jesus Christ involving a landowner who hires labourers. The first labourer is hired at the break of dawn and on an almost hourly basis the landlord hires additional people, all of whom receive the same wages. Those who were hired in the morning complained as they looked over their shoulders begrudgingly, even though, as our Lord pointed out, they had all agreed the same wage. There is something foolish in giving a pension to somebody who continues to work in virtually the same job but that was the agreed arrangement.

The cut of 25% was an appropriate and wise decision. My good friend, Senator Cummins, who I respect and admire, asked why the reduction could not be 100% rather than 25%. The perfectly obvious answer is that 25% is a reduction but 100% is an abolition. That is the legal point.

I am concerned that the perception of party political advantage will take hold. Everybody knows the matter is being addressed. Pensions will be completely abolished for sitting Members after the next election. I listened with great interest to my colleague, Senator O’Toole, who wondered where the witch hunt will end once we start it. Will it end with the police or retired teachers marking exam papers? I am concerned that we may unleash a tide of begrudgery instead of addressing the matter. We must give the people an opportunity to vent their justified rage without inflaming it further.

I missed this afternoon’s vote in this House because I was attending a meeting of the Joint Committee on Education and Science where I stated that I would support the Minister for Education and Skills, as I supported her predecessor, if she introduced fees. I made all the cogent arguments for the necessity of introducing fees and I believe I was absolutely correct even though I could hear the sound of votes shedding all over the place. I spoke on behalf of the disadvantaged people who, unless we introduce a proper cut-off level——


An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I understand the Senator is sharing time with Senator Mullen.


Senator David Norris: Yes.


An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator is eating into the next speaker’s time.

Senator David Norris: I will sit down in that case. It is important for people to tell the truth. I wish I had more time because I would like to highlight some examples of dishonest and selective journalism. There is very little investigative journalism in this affair. If they are so interested, let them investigate the degree and quality of the contributions. Voting is a technical matter and we always lose because the Government has a built-in advantage. What difference does it make? I speak as a journalist when I say that journalists should be more realistic.

Order of Business - 5th May 2010

Order of Business - 5th May 2010
Senator David Norris: I have already had an opportunity to pay tribute to the late wonderful broadcaster, Gerry Ryan. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to say anything more at this stage, apart from this. I was in a taxi yesterday and the taxi driver said he was disgusted because he had just passed the Ryan household in Clontarf and saw banks of photographers outside. In the house there was a grieving widow and the children had appealed for privacy. I ask the Leader to impart some knowledge to the House on when the legislation on privacy promised by the Government will be introduced.

I again refer to the fact the Legislature has significantly failed to uphold the rights of citizens by legislation, in this case the rights of unmarried fathers to guardianship of their children. Two years ago there was a decision in a case in the High Court which recognised the existence of a de facto family but last December the Supreme Court stated there was no recognition of the existene of a de facto family in Irish law or under the Constitution which only protected what it described as the marital family. Last week a father lost his case for guardianship, despite the fact that his partner had removed his children to England without his consent, because he had not raised the issue by applying for guardianship in the courts. A significant editorial in The Irish Times stated:

A father who spent many years devotedly caring for his children could find that, unless he had obtained guardianship through agreement with his partner or through a court order, he had no rights when the relationship broke up. The fact that one in three children is born outside marriage in Ireland underlies the potential scale of the problem.

The Law Reform Commission’s provisional report has recommended that unless it is against the best interests of the child, the right of an unmarried father to guardianship should be recognised in law. We are in dereliction of our duty by not examining this issue and passing the appropriate legislation. I pay tribute to Mr. John Waters who has campaigned ceaselessly on this issue in the column of the newspaper for which he writes.

Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009 - Second Stage Debate - 29th April 2010

Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009 - Second Stage Debate - 29th April 2010
Senator David Norris: I also welcome the Minister of State and, like my colleagues, broadly welcome the Bill, although I have some reservations about it. I have already organised the tabling of amendments to it.

The Minister of State outlined the background to the legislation, to which Senator Regan referred, namely, the European directive and the attempt by the Government to transpose it into Irish law. The problem is — this is a point to which I will return — that in the transposition of the directive there has not been homogenous application of its provisions in all European countries. I will point to certain discrepancies between this country and certain other European countries which place elements of Irish business at a disadvantage. That is my first point.

In his recital of the history of the origins of the legislation the Minister of State invoked the spectre of the Madrid bombings, terrorism and so on. Interestingly, he also indicated that the Data Protection Commissioner had intervened at a certain stage to reduce drastically, from three years to six months, the period within which data had to be retained. I find this very interesting, particularly in the light of the reservations expressed by the commissioner concerning the retention of data in criminal cases.

I join my colleagues in welcoming the fact that the Garda Síochána managed to use what the Minister of State described as a “who, what, where and when” of telephonic records to secure convictions in recent murder cases. This can only be applauded by citizens. However, concerns have been raised about the retention of data in circumstances where citizens have been acquitted. This appears to go completely against the presumption of innocence, a cardinal tenet of law. I would like the Minister of State to examine this matter because it is very serious.

Will the Minister of State explain or ask the Minister of State who introduced the legislation what he meant when he said: “. . . it was decided, for a technical reason, to proceed by way of primary legislation [having already contemplated doing so by secondary legislation]?” It is not sufficient for the information of the House to be simply told that a matter was decided for a technical reason; we need full disclosure. I would like to know exactly what was that technical reason. It may perhaps refer to the series of cases to which Senator Regan adverted.

The Minister of State also said: “Section 2 gives effect to Article 1.2 of the directive by providing that the Bill does not apply to the content of communications.” How, in the name of God, could it, unless there was routine recording of conversations? I seek an assurance that this does not happen. I can tell the House that 25 or 30 years ago my telephone was tapped. I attempted to do something about this, but I came up against a brick wall. Of course, as I was not a journalist at that stage, I did not receive any answer or compensation. However, one needs to be reassured that one’s telephone conversations will remain private. I will be calling in another context for the introduction of a law on privacy. I have a house in Cyprus and on top of the Troodos Mountains where I live there are the golf balls of the allies. I know what they are used for; they are used to listen in to every single telephone conversation. This is done electronically and recordings are triggered by the use of certain words. I frequently speak the word “al-Qaeda” into the telephone just to cause a bit of bother.

Reference was made to the Revenue Commissioners, in which respect Senator O’Donovan expressed concern. I would be delighted if some of the big boys were caught, but with regard to the idea that tackling tax evasion is always a top priority for the Revenue Commissioners, I wonder about this and the effectiveness of their operations. I have always been a compliant taxpayer, always tried to pay every single penny that I owe in tax and made my returns on time. Therefore, I was surprised to receive a bill for an extra €2,000 on the basis that I had made a late submission. Luckily, I had kept the receipt and was able to show that that was not the case, but I did not receive an apology. I received a cheque for €450, which is a little different from them trying to extract €2,000 from me. If I was a dotty old widow or widower, I probably would have paid the bill. Therefore, when the Revenue Commissioners obtain information, let us make sure they will use it appropriately and efficiently.

With regard to security and safety concerns about data kept on laptops, there is a good deal of nonsense spoken. Yesterday I was stuck in a stone corridor between two locked fire doors in the basement of Leinster House. How safe was I if there had been an explosion? In the old days one could have bought one’s old computer for €100 when one was issued with a one, but now we are told we cannot do this because of security concerns. That is bizarre. If there were secrets on our computers, they would be ours. In any case I had never used my computer. I wanted to take one to Cyprus to learn how to use it and leave another one here but that was not acceptable. I said there was nothing on my computer. We can be a little daft about such matters. The point I am making is that most instances of security failure are due to human frailty, not a technical flaw.

I wish to deal with another serious point. I have been briefed by the Internet Service Providers Association of Ireland which is concerned that some of the proposals made in the Bill will seriously weaken the industry’s competitive edge, deter innovative Internet-based businesses from establishing here and hurt Ireland’s reputation as e-commerce hub. This is a development of what I said, that there is not homogenous application of the provisions of the directive throughout the European Union. My concerns come under four headings and include the timescale, which is too long and about which other Members have indicated they might have slight concerns, the cost burden to the Internet supplier, the flawed procedures, in particular, inappropriate applications, oral applications and so on, and unfair liability.

In regard to the timescale, the Minister of State said the majority of countries had this timescale or a longer one. The facts are as follows. Luxembourg, Germany, Lithuania, Slovakia and Holland apply a six-month retention period for Internet data. We can clearly see the one-year requirement stipulated in the Communications (Retention of Data) Bill puts Irish Internet service providers at a serious and distinct disadvantage. I suggest a six-month Internet data retention period. This is vital to ensure Ireland maintains its status as an e-commerce hub. It relates to competition. The cost of doing business here must not be greater than overseas. For example, Holland, with its six-month retention period, is an advanced e-commerce nation and a serious competitor to Ireland. We must retain our competitive position.

I will table an amendment to amend section 3(1), which deals with Internet data, to read “in the case of the data in the category specified in Part 2 of Schedule 2, a period of six months”. I propose this reduction and ask the Minister of State to consider it.

There is the cost burden. Most EU member states do not reimburse costs incurred by operators to retain and retrieve data, but some do. I will give some examples which are among our main competitors. France, Germany and Holland, which is one of our main competitors, provide funds to cover certain operational costs. Lithuania covers the cost of retention if public authorities request that particular data is retained for more than six months. France and Germany have lists for the different kinds of data requests and their corresponding payments. In the Czech Republic, Finland and Britain, money spent on equipment acquired to retain and retrieve data is reimbursed. Irish ISPs are placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis those countries, including serious competitors like Holland where some form of reimbursement is provided. Other services provided to law enforcement, equipment, fuel, etc. are paid for. Why should the provision of this service be treated differently? I will suggest a subsection requiring ISPs to be reimbursed for capital expenditure and operating costs. That will probably be ruled out of order because it will be seen as imposing a cost on the Exchequer but I will at least seek to have the principle ventilated.

There is the question of flawed procedures. The provisions in regard to the complaints procedure in section 10(1) are flawed and will serve only to encourage sloppy work. For example, evidence secured by a search warrant is rendered invalid if the strict stipulations governing such a search warrant are not followed. Why should there be any difference for a disclosure request concerning electronic data? Why should the authority be bothered to follow the rules if the end results will be invalid anyway? The options for redress are unacceptably limited. The recommendation is that section 10(1) be amended so that a contravention of section 6 in regard to a disclosure request shall make the disclosure request invalid and any such contravention shall be subject to an investigation in accordance with the subsequent provisions of this section and nothing in this subsection shall affect case of action for the infringement of a constitutional right.

I refer to unfair liability and immunity. The Bill does not express immunity from liability of a service provider which, in good faith, discloses data on request which purports to be in accordance with the new regulations but which is not. Examples would be if data is not requested for the purpose of the detection, investigation or prosecution of serious offences or an error is made in the date and time or the wrong subscriber is identified. I will table an amendment in this regard.

I refer to unfair liability and the question of oral versus written requests. As Members all know, oral requests for anything can be a bit tendentious. There is a serious potential risk in section 6(5) regarding disclosure requests. There is the potential problem of documentation not arriving and no proof the request was ever made. It places Internet service providers in danger of falling into civil law traps.

Section 6(5) should be dropped. Requests should be written or a unique request numbering system should be used so that when an oral request is made, it is allocated a unique identifier in the same manner as if it were written which must then be placed on the subsequent written request. If the written request is not received, the ISP would have this reference to prove the oral request was made. We are basically talking about a paper trail and actual, clear and factual evidence. It would obviate a situation where somebody could say he or she telephoned and made a request. We would have no proof. In these serious matters, some degree of proof is needed so this unique identifier is an important element. I hope the Minister of State will consider it seriously.

Order of Business - 29th April 2010

Order of Business - 29th April 2010
Senator David Norris: Yesterday, some of my colleagues joined me in the calls I have consistently made for the past six to eight months for some kind of questioning of the international ratings agencies. I congratulate “Morning Ireland” on catching up. It has started to raise this issue a mere six to eight months later. I am happy to provide ideas to the media. It is a very serious issue. These ratings agencies have deliberately, systematically, corruptly and dishonestly rated things like the toxic bundles. They were wrong about Iceland and Ireland and we are still allowing them to get away with it. Sometimes they are right, although almost by accident. Most of the time they are wrong, whether through stupidity or dishonesty, and they are never challenged. Even if they are right, they are just as dangerous because of the method they use to release this information and its timing. They have done this in Greece, with the help of Goldman Sachs, and they are now targeting Spain. Ireland will be next.

Let the international community stand together. I call for an international commission of inquiry into the origin, background and practices of all the ratings agencies and the establishment of a truly independent agency under the United Nations so that the matter can be settled. I issue a challenge to The Irish Times which does wonderful work. Sometimes it takes up little ideas and develops them. Let it unleash Fintan O’Toole or some other writer to do a report for the people to establish where these people come from and what they are up to. In regard to the Anglo Irish Bank situation, it is a vindication of the views of Peter Mathews and I repeat my call that he should appear before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service.

I call for a debate on Chad where the situation is very serious. We have a large number of troops there who are at the point of being precipitately withdrawn. If they are withdrawn, 500,000 men, women and children will be left defenceless in the face of marauding armed groups, the Janjaweed, bandits and so on.

I wish to end on a positive note. I am sure the Cathaoirleach and all my colleagues have noticed the fantastic and beautiful display of flowers at the entrance to Leinster House. The Office of Public Works should be publicly congratulated on them as well as on the work it does in other parks such as St. Stephen’s Green and Merrion Square.

Motion on Smarter Travel Initiative - 28th April 2010

Motion on Smarter Travel Initiative - 28th April 2010
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State and congratulate him on his appointment to the Department of Transport. Before he leaves the Chamber, I wish to comment on his observations regarding a hierarchy with pedestrians are at the top, cyclists next and then motorists. There is a degree of discrimination against motorists, which is regrettable. I live in the north inner city and it is virtually impossible for me to drive anywhere in a rational, joined-up or smart manner. On a wet day or if I have heavy documents to bring with me to Leinster House, I cannot drive from North Great George’s Street to Kildare Street because it is not possible to turn right or left at certain points, because one is directed to move in a particular direction and because of the existence of the bus gate and the idiotic 18 mph speed limit. That is not safety. Any taxi driver will inform the Minister of State that the roads are not safer because the slow speed limit increases people’s propensity to jaywalk.


Deputy Ciarán Cuffe: I rarely disagree completely with the Senator but in this instance I must do so.


Acting Chairman (Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú): Senator Norris must be allowed to make his contribution, without interruption.


Senator David Norris: I am merely outlining my lived experience.


Deputy Ciarán Cuffe: As a parent of young children, I take exception to the Senator’s remarks.


Senator Paudie Coffey: The Minister of State had plenty of time in which to make his contribution. He should listen to the Senator.


Acting Chairman (Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú): Senator Norris, without interruption.


Deputy Ciarán Cuffe: I apologise for intervening.


Senator David Norris: The facts do not support the argument that there is any real concern for mortality in the inner city. To have cars moving around the city at a crawl is absolutely idiotic. The position with regard to traffic speeds is chaotic. In Tallaght, for example, there is a three-lane highway on which a speed limit of 60 km/h applies. People could easily drive their cars at speeds of 100 km/h or 120 km/h on that stretch of road. When one comes off the highway to which I refer, one goes straight onto a winding, dangerous country road on which a speed limit of 100 km/h applies. That is insane. Further consideration must be given to this matter.

Before the Minister of State departs, I wish to raise one further matter with him, namely, integrated transport and not just in this country. I have just returned, with some difficulty, from the island of Cyprus. Once again I was obliged to travel through Gatwick Airport. I decided to try to use the international flight connections at that airport because my time was so short. I made all the necessary arrangements but when I lifted the emergency telephone, I was informed that I could not use the service. When I inquired why that was the case I was informed that my flight to Ireland was domestic in nature. I thanked the person on the line for that really wonderful news and stated that when I left this country three weeks ago, it was called the Republic of Ireland. I asked whether, on foot of what I had just been told, the Republic had rejoined the British empire and indicated that Her Majesty would be greatly pleased if this were the case. He inquired as to what I meant and I informed him that either this country is a republic or it is part of the United Kingdom.

The Minister of State should try to take this matter up with the British authorities. What is happening is idiotic. Passengers are forced out of the relevant terminal and obliged to pass through customs, passport control etc., and must then undergo the same procedures again when they come to the next terminal. Why is that the case? It is just because we are Irish. That is not good enough. We should not be treated as second-class citizens at a major international airport in London.


Deputy Ciarán Cuffe: I thank the Senator. On the issue he raised earlier, I will passionately defend the 30 km/h speed limit until I am on my death bed.


Senator David Norris: Perhaps not when he is on his death bed, but we shall certainly find another opportunity to discuss this matter at a later date.


Deputy Ciarán Cuffe: Yes, perhaps we might discuss it on a subsequent occasion.


Senator David Norris: The Minister of State gave an indication of strong support on the part of the Government for the metro. That is extremely important. His replacement, the former distinguished Senator and now Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is aware that the metro project originated in this House some years ago, when some of us used an unusual political situation to put through the first legislative framework relating to it.

It is extremely important that the metro should proceed. However, I understand that difficulties have arisen in the context of planning. I hope the Government has taken on board the advice provided by Professor Manuel Maynar Melis who was invited to come here from Spain in order to give such advice. The Spanish authorities are able to proceed much more rapidly with the development of new metro systems because they have addressed, in legislative terms, all the difficulties that can arise in the context of planning, appeals, and so on. I hope the metro system will proceed as rapidly as possible.

I was surprised to hear a Minister of State from the Green Party refer to densities. He indicated that areas in which houses have back and front gardens and side entrances could not, because the densities are not high enough, support a metro or an underground system. I do not believe that is true. I am of the view that there is an adequate level of density in this city. The authorities in the city of Newcastle in England put in an underground system which became so successful that it made a profit and has now been bought by a major German combine. The metro is the way to go.

I do not necessarily believe the metro should be placed in conflict with Luas. The latter provides an interesting, comfortable but totally inadequate service. It can never be made adequate for perfectly demonstrable mathematical reasons. At our instigation, a model relating to the Luas was prepared by Dr. Garret FitzGerald and this demonstrated that it could not accommodate sufficient passengers as a result of the fact that too many intransigent variables formed part of the equation.

There are two Luas lines but these were never joined up. That was idiotic and it was certainly not smart transport policy. I was one of those who pointed out the shortcomings in this regard when the project was initially proceeding. I further highlighted the fact that not connecting the transport system directly to the airport was also somewhat idiotic. However, we are moving on and are working with a capable and energetic Minister of State in Deputy Cuffe. I do not always agree 100% with him but that is as may be.

We need to consider the comfort of passengers on the Luas. I recently had occasion to travel on both Luas lines and discovered that there is a noticeable difference between the red line and the green line. One has a much more civilised ride on the south side line that goes out to Sandyford, on which I believe there is greater supervision. I also have travelled on the line to Tallaght and from quite early in the evening there is a fair amount of aggressive behaviour on the trams, which is highly regrettable. People who are under the influence of drink or drugs make themselves obnoxious in various ways to other well-behaved passengers. I acknowledge there is some supervision and I pay tribute to the security officers on those trams but it must be upgraded. Such behaviour ranges from simple but annoying things like people ignorantly placing their feet on the seats right up to directly aggressive behaviour.

In respect of cars, I indicated that a kind of hierarchy existed. The Minister of State also talked about the carbon tax and during a budget debate a year or two ago, I made the point to his party leader, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, that in respect of car transport, the Government should be increasing the price of petrol rather than increasing car tax on the basis that the polluter should pay. This is the single most efficient method of raising revenue and is the most environmentally friendly. In addition, the car scrappage scheme is a nonsense. As Ireland is not even a car manufacturing country, we do not get any benefit from their manufacture and from an environmental perspective, it is completely counter-productive.

As for cycle lanes, I welcome them although I have retired from cycling as I found it to be far too bloody dangerous in the city of Dublin. However, the Minister should review the cycle lanes because they are incoherent. They sometimes cross and merge with other transport planes in an incoherent fashion. Moreover, they travel a certain distance and then suddenly stop in the middle of nowhere. Consequently, this issue should be examined.

However, I welcome this debate and hope we will get a smarter transport system with fully integrated ticketing. I welcome both the extension of the DART to the docklands and the western rail corridor. There has been some progress and I encourage the Government to complete as soon as possible the work on metro north, which is a vital component of our transport policy.

Order of Business - 28th April 2010

Order of Business - 28th April 2010
Senator David Norris: I agree with my colleagues who spoke about the matter of the Garda convention. I have always believed in freedom of speech and still do.
It may well be legitimate for individual citizens to hold and, in some cases, express extreme views such as those that have been aired. However, we are not discussing an ordinary citizen. The person in question is a representative of those who are the guardians of the peace and the defenders of the State. At his organisation's conference a high level official attempted, in effect, to impeach a legitimately elected Government, used words such as "sabotage", "treason" and "corruption" and tried, in particular, to finger one political party, namely, Fianna Fáil. I do not hold a brief for Fianna Fáil or any other party because I am an Independent. However, if we want effective and decent government, we must draw the line somewhere. What I outlined was a highly dangerous course to take. A number of highly decent gardaí, whom I hold in high respect, would have been taken aback by what was said. I invite the membership of the Garda Síochána, regardless of whether they are represented by the association in question, to stand back and resist an invitation to become involved with this extremely dangerous soundbite culture. One of the words used was "corruption". I accept that there is corruption in international financial circles. I am under a fatwa by the media in respect of this matter because nothing I have ever said about economics, either in this House or elsewhere, has ever been reported. I am glad, therefore, that six months after I began to pose questions about Standard & Poor's and other rating agencies, the remaining Members of the House have joined in. Perhaps the media will listen on this occasion.
A great deal is said about the systemic importance etc. of banks. This tells me one thing, namely, that no one has the courage or the testicular fortitude to take on the system.
Senator Michael McCarthy: Senator Norris should call them balls, for God's sake.
Senator David Norris: Such fortitude is what is needed in order to take on the system, of which Standard & Poor's, Fitch Ratings and Moodys are part. These companies are completely corrupt, particularly as they were involved in rating the toxic bundles that precipitated the entire financial crisis. Goldman Sachs corruptly profited as a result of Greece being sent down the slide. No one is taking action in this matter.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has made his point.
Senator David Norris: I again call for Standard & Poor's and the other companies to which I refer to be wiped off the international map and for a truly independent ratings agency to be established under the auspices for the United Nations.
Senator Jim Walsh: Last night's edition of "Prime Time" contained a report on the murder of Eamonn Dunne in Cabra last week. The programme which was excellent clearly illustrated that the gentleman in question was heavily involved in a number of murders that had taken place there and in surrounding areas and caused one to question why he was not already in prison. It emerged on the programme that criminal gang members were abusing the system of judicial review and using it as a form of delaying tactic. In addition, there are issues with regard to bail. It is time the House engaged in a debate on whether the common law system is failing the State.
The programme to which I refer also highlighted the contribution the Garda Síochána made to the protection of society. It is the only force that stands between us and anarchy. The programme clearly illustrated the importance of the Garda Síochána to society. In such circumstances, I join speakers who have stated the speech the president of the GRA was reportedly going to deliver yesterday was reprehensible. It was a corruption of the pledge of impartiality, which each garda is obliged to take. The Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána must be beyond partisan politics. Extreme views such as those expressed raise questions about the capacity and ability of the individual involved to carry out his duty to society in an impartial and fair manner. I carried out some research earlier this morning and have discovered that the pay scale for gardaí commences at almost €30,000 and rises, after ten or 11 years, to €50,000. The pay scale for police officers in Britain commences at £22,000 or approximately €25,000 and rises to £35,000, or €40,000, after ten years. Gardaí, like all of us in the public service, are exceptionally well paid in comparison to their counterparts elsewhere. I compliment Senator Donohoe on the manner in which he addressed this issue. What he said was in stark contrast with the comments made by Fine Gael's spokesman on justice in the Dáil yesterday, which were completely irresponsible.
An Cathaoirleach: That matter is not relevant to the business of the House.

Statements on Women's Participation in Politics - 27th April 2010

Statements on Women's Participation in Politics - 27th April 2010
Senator David Norris: That was a fine and challenging speech by Senator Harris. I also compliment the previous speakers, Senator Fitzgerald, the Minister of State and, most particularly, Senator McDonald. I thought her contribution was challenging and clear. She took on those within the backwoods of her party, which takes political courage. I felt every word she said was right. Of course, it is not applicable to Fianna Fáil alone; it is applicable across the entire political spectrum.
I congratulate the Minister of State on being the first woman to be elected in the constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny. It is not possible to beat midlands women, as I know very well because my mother was from the midlands. My father died when I was a child and during that period of life in the late 1940s and 1950s she received absolutely nothing. My father had been the breadwinner in the family. If my mother had died, my father would have received a housekeeper's allowance. That indicates the position of women.
To a certain extent, it all goes back to Article 41 which recognises the special role of women in the home. What about the special role of men in the home? What about the idea that they might be seduced away to neglect their duties? It is something that is outdated, a wonderful Constitution which is organic. That means that not only do certain elements of it grow and develop organically, but also that others should be allowed to wither. That attitude is one of them.
There has been a glorious tradition of electing women to this House. The first two were very contrasting figures, Jane Wyse Power who came from a republican background and the Countess of Desart who represented the Unionist interest. Women have been involved in everything, including some of the more dubious aspects. For example, while I am not suggesting there is anything dubious about Niamh Cosgrave, she was part of a dubious system, having been nominated during the interregnum after the collapse of a Government.
She never sat in the House but voted in the next Seanad election. Countess Markievicz was also a Member, a very remarkable woman.
The situation is worse than was mentioned. The figure for Seanad Éireann is not 20%, it is 17%.

Senator David Norris: Is it? This is the figure I got from one of the reports so presumably it has been changed.
That helpful interruption came from Senator Bacik and we are largely here today because of her initiatives. It was she who proposed the investigation by the committee of the role of women in politics and it was her who secured the services not only of former and present distinguished women politicians but also of Professor Yvonne Galligan, who made a series of extraordinarily important recommendations.
I was challenged on my percentages but I will turn to an official document on which I will not be challenged, even though it makes for grim reading. It concerns representation within the European Parliament. Finland is the best with 61.5%, while Ireland is a shameful 22nd, with a mere 25%. That will surprise people because we think we are a forward looking, progressive country.
It is even worse looking at global classifications. The country in first place is Rwanda, where there is almost a women's government. It is very exciting, although it is tragic in its origin, which was partly that so many of the men were wiped out. Of the parliamentary representatives, 56.3% are women and the majority of cabinet ministers are female. I think we should watch this space because, please God, they will add some ordinary decent common sense. Globally, however, we are number 85, bracketed with Cameroon. What a distinction.
I support quotas for women because I genuinely believe they have a different angle on life. I have practical experience of this. I pushed for many years for reform of the criminal penalties for male homosexuals. No one would touch it. Albert Reynolds fled from it. It was judged to be a major transgression of human rights but Albert said it was not one of his priorities. There was then the awful possibility that Raphael Burke might be entrusted with this delicate and sensitive legislation but, thank God, he did not take it up and it was left to Máire Geoghegan-Quinn. A woman did it because she had more integrity and more moral courage than any of the men who were all terrified of the issues.
As an aside, if people think it is bad being a woman, they should try being gay in politics. It can be quite fun but it is also a bit of a risk. It is extraordinary, 51% of the population are women but only 20% of Members are female, a tiny proportion, while 10% of the population is gay but for a long time I was the only gay in the village. I am not any longer, there is another one here, openly gay and an excellent contributor. Apparently, however, there are none at all in the Dáil. Is that not astonishing? That is one of the reasons I respond so strongly to these issues, because I have been there, sisters.
The task policy development committee report gave me the information that 17% of Members were female.

Senator David Norris: So the committee got it wrong too. Interestingly, according to my report, it states there are 14% in the Dáil and "only" 17% in the Seanad. It should have started with the larger number in the Seanad and then "only" the smaller number in the Dáil.
Fianna Fáil took on the issue to an extent. I read the party's gender equality audit and the gender equality action plan. There is a nice photograph of Bertie Ahern and some excellent rhetoric that approximately one half of the entire population is grossly under-represented at almost every level of the body politic and that in 2004, Irish politics is still largely a man's world. Then Sir Humphrey follows Bertie and there is a lot of wonderful language but there is a voice in the background that can be heard saying: "Yes, that will fix them for the next 40 years. We need not bother about that again."
There were, however, some interesting elements to the report. There was a reported reluctance on the part of Fianna Fáil, or any of the other parties for that matter, to choose women candidates for winnable seats. Senator McDonald mentioned the term "sweepers". Female candidates are fine as sweepers, sweeping the votes in for the lads. On the other hand, there was a suspicion that women are more interested in the home and the family and, thereby, not really qualified.
Thank God, during my lifetime we have seen some remarkable developments, such as the women's liberation movement in the early 1970s and the establishment of the National Women's Council, an excellent briefing group, representatives of which are present. Of course, there was Mary Robinson. Her performance in this House, on Dublin City Council and at the Bar, where she represented all of the most progressive social issues, helped to transform Irish politics and started to remove what a leading academic had described as the disempowerment of Irish women as citizens. I was at her inaugural address in Dublin Castle in 1999, when she said "As a woman, I want women who have felt themselves outside history to be written back into history". That was most remarkable.
She has been followed by President Mary McAleese. One of the academic studies I read drew a contrast between Mary McAleese and Mary Robinson, which is perfectly reasonable because they are very different people and I did not agree with some of President McAleese's views before she was President, although now she is above politics. Ascribed to her in the document are not only reactionary views, as they were described, on abortion, contraception and so on, but also on homosexuality. That is not fair. She was one of the co-founders of the campaign for homosexual law reform with me so that should not be allowed to stand as a view of the President.
There is a problem with quotas because they are conceived as discriminatory. They may, however, be a necessary mechanism. Looking at the situation elsewhere, according to Professor Yvonne Galligan, in Europe five countries have passed candidate quota legislation binding on all parties, ranging from a 33% gender quota in Portugal to a 50% quota in France and Belgium, with Spain and Slovenia in between at 40% and 35%, respectively. Their enactment has made a difference. In Spain, women's representation in parliament has gone from 28% in 2002, before the law was passed, to 36% in 2008, a huge jump in a comparatively small space of time politically. In Belgium, female representation in parliament has increased from 12% in 1995 to 37%. That is incredible - an increase of 25%. In France, the application of the parity laws to municipal elections increased women's representation from 26% in 1995 to 49% in 2008. That is the legislative model. There is also a voluntary code for political parties internally.
Various Senators have mentioned the five Cs. In my male arrogance, I thought I was the first person to note all five started with a "C" but then I looked in the appendix and saw a reference to the five Cs - child care, cash, culture, candidate selection procedures and confidence.
Members who get pregnant or who have children should instantly be paired. I was horrified to find this does not happen. It should happen immediately and the parties can do it. Female Members should sit on them, as it were, and demand pairing arrangements. It does not cost anything and will not lose a vote. It is terribly important and can be done straight away.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I ask the Senator to conclude.

Senator David Norris: In that case, being a very biddable male and subservient in all things to the authority of the Chair and the gentle person therein, I will subside.

I very much welcome this debate and congratulate the members of the committee, in particular Senator Bacik.
It was mentioned that education gives confidence. I was really jealous when Senator Bacik organised a commemoration of the 90th election of Countess Markievicz with a photograph on the great staircase that included very many women who played a pivotal role in Irish politics. It was wonderful. That photograph should go into every school and be up as a poster all over the place. It says, "This is what women can do and have contributed. Maximise it".