Order of Business - 24th June 2010

Order of Business - 24th June 2010
Senator David Norris: Yesterday Senator Ó Murchú complained about being subjected to verbal abuse by a Member. As the record will show, I have frequently paid tribute to the Senator for his honourable defence of human rights in areas ranging from Palestine to Iraq and rendition. For that reason, I was astonished and appalled when on 3 June he suggested in the House that his party in government was, once again, inflicting the Penal Laws on the people through the introduction of the civil partnership legislation. I was particularly upset because my own family had suffered because of the Penal Laws. I had an ancestor, of whom I am extremely proud who was a Roman Catholic bishop during the Penal Laws period when my family lost considerable amounts of land and property. It was very offensive. Senator Ó Murchú was magisterially rebuffed by Senator Donohue. On another day I asked that this comment which I had found deeply offensive and inaccurate be withdrawn but nothing happened. I was met by silence. Senator Ó Murchú spoke with controlled anger which I understand. I spoke to him during a lull in business while a vote was taking place when I indicated how offensive I had found his remarks, particularly given the heightened feelings expressed daily by ignorant people outside the gates of Leinster House. He said he could explain and attempted to do so factually, suggesting people would be imprisoned and so on. This is an accurate account. I indicated that although nothing remotely like this was contained in the provisions of the Civil Partnership Bill, it was to be found in equality legislation, against which the church, shamefully, had sought and been granted an exemption from equality provisions. Senator Ó Murchú did not accept this and I indicated that his position was a strongly bigoted one. I say with regret that he has indicated he has received support from some of his colleagues. Some other colleagues have indicated their support for what I said and I do not relish such a dispute. If my tone was inappropriate and hectoring, I unreservedly apologise to Senator Ó Murchú, but I do not retract a single word. I would not be so presumptuous as to suggest I am Rosa Parks, but I will not be sent to the back of a bus by anyone. It is very sinister that a small group of Members in this House, on both sides, is attempting to co-opt the language of liberation, tolerance and conscience to defend positions that are, in fact, deeply reactionary. In the future I will confine my disputes with Senator Ó Murchú to the debate in the House and hope he accepts what I say. I certainly understand his anger but wish he had the imagination to understand the depth of mine and the offence I felt at the remarks passed.


An Cathaoirleach: I ruled on previous occasions that the withdrawal of comments made should not be raised on the Order of Business in following days.

Private Members Motion on Environmental Protection - 23rd June 2010

Private Members Motion on Environmental Protection - 23rd June 2010
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Áine Brady. I would also have been happy to welcome her predecessor in the House who made a very valiant stand this evening. Very often these Wednesday evening debates during Private Members’ time are an opportunity for posturing with a tit for tat routine that means absolutely nothing. However, this evening we have learned a certain amount and I am grateful to the Labour Party for tabling the motion which provoked a significant response from the Minister. It was the best performance I had seen from him in the House. The contribution of Senator Boyle was spirited and absolutely passionate. It came not only from the mind but also from the heart, which is what gives the House real value.

With all the passion we have, we should be on the same side because we are fighting over the same environment, whatever party and ideological framework we come from. In this light, as there was very little that could be offensive to the Government in the Labour Party motion, I told the Labour Party that the only part with which I could see a problem was where it sought the early enactment of climate change legislation promised by the Government but not yet delivered. That statement is factual because I was in the House when Senator Bacik presented her Climate Protection Bill. At that stage she was an independent university Senator. It is a fine piece of work and the Minister was in considerable sympathy with her and gave an undertaking, with a timeframe, that it would be introduced. This was not met, but it was because of the complex difficulties outlined by the Minister this evening. I asked the Labour Party representative, Senator Hannigan, whether he would agree to delete that phrase in order that I could speak with the Government representative, which I did. However, it was considered that my intervention was a little too late, although it might have been accepted. I say this because there is a constructive feeling, despite the dramatics this evening, which I certainly welcome, as they indicated the sincerity of the participants.

I was also told there might be a little difficulty with the final phrase, “remedial measures to address hazardous waste sites, including at Haulbowline, County Cork”. However, if I were on the Government side, I would state the Minister answered this very clearly when he indicated this is exactly what was being done. He has stated that in recent years Cork County Council has carried out a comprehensive site investigation, initiated ongoing environmental monitoring at established monitoring points, decontaminated and demolished the steelworks buildings and arranged for site surface clearance. The problem is presented by what may be contained in the infill and soil. The behaviour of the steelworks under its new ownership certainly broke every possible environmental regulation. The Minister stated, “Under my watch, more has been spent on environmental remediation at Haulbowline in a 12-month period than was spent in the previous 68-year history of the site.” That should make it perfectly easy for him to accept the final clause of the Labour Party motion because the answer is contained in his speech. It was very sad that an Irish business, Irish Steel, was sold off to an Indian speculator for a nominal sum with no restrictions placed on operations at the plant and no requirement to engage in remedial action. It was an unwholesome episode.

I have consistently raised the issue of water quality. I was delighted to hear a passionate speech from Senator Coffey. It is great to have Members in the House who can speak with such conviction and such a level of knowledge and expertise without reading every word from a script. If it is not seen as patronising, I commend the Senator for making an excellent speech. I was very pleased to hear him talk about cryptosporidiosis and hope he will not mind when I say I brought up the issue some time ago before his election. I was briefed by the university in which I taught on the subject, as it was seen to be of considerable importance. It was so new at that stage that I asked someone to spell the word “cryptosporidiosis” and I am glad to say I was so well briefed that I was able to do so.

We have had a negative judgment recently from the European Court of Justice concerning the quality of our drinking water. Nobody could be happy with the levels of contamination which is a source of real concern. Large sections of our society, Galway in particular, as the Minister of State will know, have been left without drinking water for considerable periods of time, which is scandalous and intolerable, as we are not living in the middle of a desert. Water is not a resource which should be unmanageable. It is a management problem which needs to be looked at.

I would be prepared, rather than delighted, to pay water charges. I believe in the polluter pays principle and that the consumer should pay in accordance with his or her means. There are people who find themselves in more difficult socio-economic circumstances who rely on local authority housing, for example, who should not be badly hit by water charges, but I would be happy to pay as long as I had a good water supply of the proper quality. The Minister of State can include me as somebody who would be happy to pay. I welcome metering because one should pay for what one consumes. I have a house in a very remote area of Cyprus in an agricultural village on the Troodos mountains. It is not the most advanced and sophisticated environment, but my water supply is metered. I do not see why it should be beyond the technical capacity of the authorities in Ireland to introduce it here. I am very glad it is being introduced because it is fair and one should pay for what one consumes.

On other aspects of water contamination, I agree with Senator Ellis. I am aware that the inflexible application of rules can be inappropriate in the spreading of slurry. Farming is a seasonal occupation. One cannot predict the weather with enormous accuracy over a long period. It is not just a question of the impact on farmers; the Senator saw things largely from their point of view when he said no sensible farmer would spread slurry when he knew it would be washed away. However, we must consider the question of where it is washed into. Only yesterday the newspapers were full of stories about another huge fish kill as a result of the release of agricultural slurry. That is a great pity.

I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of State the risks to the environment from mineral exploration. There is a horrendous, breathtaking tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico, involving BP, where millions of gallons of oil are being spewed out. There are large question marks against technical efficiency levels, the ignoring of advice and turning away from the necessity to plug a potential leak in one of the control systems. BP is one of the major oil companies which I ask the Minister of State to bear in mind when we are examining Shell. Deep sea exploration is taking place in the Corrib field and the people of County Mayo have been rightly protesting about their situation where we handed over — just as Irish Steel was handed over for £1 to a speculator which led to damage further down the line — our oil and gas resources for nothing. Exploration is difficult and one has to tempt people with bait, but we have the worst tax yield in the world and a system under which the ordinary people who choose to protest against something which may very well be dangerous, inimical to their welfare and threaten their homes bear the brunt of an attack upon them by Shell, sadly aided by the organs of the State. Like I think everybody else, I am in favour of protecting the environment.

I am very glad that Senator Ellis skirted the possibility of making an attack upon An Tasice. I almost thought I saw the words “An Taisce” forming on his lips, but they did not because the Senator and I know that what An Taisce stated about the dangers presented by one-off housing in the countryside has been absolutely bourne out by the pollution of groundwater. There is no question about this. Now there is barely a mention about having to pick up the cost of remedial action. I express my continuing support of An Taisce——


Senator Paudie Coffey: The Senator should not forget his rural constituents.


Senator John Ellis: On a point of order——


Senator David Norris: I am thinking of their welfare.


An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I call Senator Ellis on a point of order.


Senator John Ellis: If the good Senator is going to embroil me in a row with himself and An Taisce——-


An Leas-Chathaoirleach: That is not a point of order.


Senator John Ellis: ——he is wrong. I never mentioned An Taisce, but the one thing I did say——


(Interruptions).

Senator John Ellis: ——was that the EPA could give people guidelines in order that they could rectify any problems.
Senator Michael McCarthy: I am not a member of An Taisce.


Senator John Ellis: The Senator has no intention of joining.


Senator Michael McCarthy: Absolutely. I was not monitoring the lips of any other Member of the House while Senator Norris was speaking. For future reference, I imagine the residents of the beautiful hamlet in northern Cyprus would like to build one-off rural houses and enjoy the same privileges as Senator Norris.


Senator David Norris: On a point of order, it is located in southern Cyprus.


An Leas-Chathaoirleach: That is not a point of order.


Senator Michael McCarthy: In concluding the debate I thank all Senators from both sides of the House who contributed.


Senator David Norris: The Senator might like to know there is now very strict planning legislation in place in Cyprus.

Order of Business - 23rd June 2010

Order of Business - 23rd June 2010
Senator David Norris: While I would have liked to have spoken on the matter of employment creation yesterday, I was frustrated by the chaotic manner in which business was ordered. I understood the debate would take place much earlier than it did and it was not possible for me to speak later in the evening. For this reason, I missed an opportunity to speak about a case I encountered outside the gates where a young man from County Clare, Mr. Paul Connellan, was launching a new product. It is a biodegradable plastic bottle, which is highly significant and could have Europe-wide application. I regret I did not have an opportunity to salute the company and its Wellness brand.

11 o’clock
I ask the Leader to arrange a debate on taxi regulation, as something chaotic is also taking place. Yesterday, owing to problems with my back, I had to travel a short distance by taxi. The vehicle, a Mercedes, was in perfect mechanical order and had a beautifully maintained interior. However, the driver must sell it in a couple of months because taxi vehicles may not be ten years old or more. This rule makes a complete and utter nonsense of the national car test. If vehicles pass the NCT and are deemed by the State to be worthy and fully competent mechanically, why should they not be driven and used as public service vehicles? I do not understand this rule.

A further serious problem is that some taxi drivers — they are not Dubliners — have a serious difficulty in negotiating their way around the capital because they simply do not know the basics of the street network. The knowledge requirement appears to be patchily applied. I, therefore, call for a debate on taxi regulation.

Order of Business - 22nd June 2010

Order of Business - 22nd June 2010
Senator David Norris: I ask the Leader to transmit to the Government congratulations on the very welcome fact that Ireland has been given a major European award in recognition that road deaths have been reduced by 41% since 2001, which is remarkable. It is a very good news story and we should pay tribute to the signal, determined and consistent efforts of Mr. Gay Byrne, who took on the job of being in control of this and was derided in this House and in some of the newspapers. We should welcome this award and the lives that have been saved.

We should also congratulate a remarkable human being who has just won a significant victory in the Irish courts. I am talking about Dr. Lydia Foy, who 13 years ago took action to establish the rights of transgendered people to have their newly assigned gender reflected on passports. She was eventually successful in the High Court some years ago in getting a declaration under the 2003 Act passed by these Houses incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights, as the existing Civil Registration Act was incompatible with the convention.

It was a very significant ruling as it was the first made under this legislation. It took enormous courage for somebody coming from a spectrum many people would think rather bizarre to take the action. She was courageous, dignified and tenacious in her action. In light of this, when will the Government address the issue by introducing new legislation?

We are in a position where transgendered people can have existing marriages annulled but this does nothing for the rights of the remaining spouses and the children, who are merely facts on the ground. We should urge the Government to follow the United Kingdom example, which recognises the rights of transgendered people and also recognises the rights of spouses from previous relationships. It is humane.

Order of Business - 17th June 2010

Order of Business - 17th June 2010
Senator David Norris: I welcome the fact that a number of my colleagues have spoken out about the intervention of the bishops. I deplore it. They are, of course, entitled to their view and to express it publicly but to attempt once again nakedly to intervene in the political process is deplorable. I was one of the founders of the Southern Ireland Civil Rights Association in 1970 which campaigned for full civil and human rights for Roman Catholics and Nationalists in Northern Ireland, particularly in employment and housing. It is really regrettable that their lordships should seek to intervene in this way. This morning I wrote to Cardinal Brady and offered to engage in a public debate with him. I have sent a copy of the letter to the director general of RTE. If the bishops want a public debate, I will be happy to give them one and ventilate all the issues involved. Can the Leader give us a clear timetable for this legislation? There appears to be some confusion between the Government parties.

Second, will the Leader ask his colleague, Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú to withdraw the disgraceful remarks he made about ten days ago in the House in which he compared the granting of civil and human rights to gay people in this country to the imposition of the penal laws? That was a most atrocious, grotesque and deliberate perversion of the truth. I say this with some authority. There was a Roman Catholic bishop in my family during the penal period and my mother’s family suffered considerably. It is an outrage that anybody should attempt to use that analogy.

Yesterday, an attempt was made to interview me about Bloomsday outside the gates to this House. A group of the storm troopers barged into the photograph and attempted to shout me down. I nearly lost my eye due to one of their placards——


Senator Cecilia Keaveney: They were only taking advantage.


Senator David Norris: Would the Senator mind taking this a little seriously?


Senator Cecilia Keaveney: They were only trying to get on the——


An Cathaoirleach: There must be no interruptions.


Senator David Norris: I am talking about human rights and there is no need to be so bloody smug about it.


An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris should speak on matters on the Order of Business.


Senator David Norris: They attempted in every way to prevent me having a say. They were also extremely personally abusive to me. If you, Senator Keaveney, find this entertaining, you are a lesser human being than I thought you were.

Private Members Motion on Confidence in the Taoiseach - 16thJune 2010

Private Members Motion on Confidence in the Taoiseach - 16th June 2010
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I call Senator Norris. The Senator has 30 seconds.


Senator David Norris: If I could just have one minute to say——


A Senator: Senator Norris is standing on the Government side, the wrong side of the House.


Senator David Norris: No. I am an Independent and I can float. I do not have much confidence in this Government.


Senator Terry Leyden: It is Bloomsday not doomsday.


Senator David Norris: The Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen, will do the best he can in the time that is left to him in the knowledge that this Government will be gone at the next election. It has behaved with a certain amount of responsibility. In particular, I pay tribute to the courage and integrity of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, who has been outstanding both in his personal life and in the way he has directed the economic affairs of the country.


Senator Paschal Mooney: Hear, hear.


Senator David Norris: However, I am not convinced that he is right and it is appalling to hear confirmation tonight from one of our committees that €20 billion of Irish taxpayers’ money is being poured down the drain. I am afraid, with respect to the decency of many of the people in the current Government, that I will be voting in favour of the motion of no confidence in the Government.

Order of Business - 16th June 2010

Order of Business - 16th June 2010
Senator David Norris: In Ulysses, James Joyce reminds us all of our shared humanity. Bloom, as he walks around Dublin, considers his repressed Jewish people all over the world. I never believed I would see a Nationalist crowd in Derry applauding a British Prime Minister who told the truth fearlessly. It was extraordinary.

Bloom would use the imaginative force so movingly evoked by Senator Harris to encompass also the plight of the Palestinians. I am unashamed to condemn utterly the murderous assault on the peace flotilla. In what was the equivalent of Bloody Sunday for the Israelis, a group, nearly equal in number, of innocent and peaceful protestors against an outrage against humanity in Gaza was slaughtered by Israeli commandoes.

Unlike some of my colleagues, I welcome that the Government has expelled an Israeli diplomat. It did so in a dignified way and made clear there was no specific accusation against that person. It was to show our complete disapproval of the way in which the Israeli authorities secured and wrongly used passports from friendly countries to murder a Hamas person in a third country. The worst aspect was the use of false information by Mossad agents to suggest they were the children of Holocaust survivors to get special German passports. This was a betrayal of everyone murdered by the Nazis.


Senator Mary M. White: Hear, hear.


Senator David Norris: I call upon the Israeli authorities to end their cynical, heartless and contemptible exploitation of the Holocaust for their political purposes. It lets everyone down, including the tragic victims of Auschwitz and every other terrible camp.

Yesterday, the German Government shamefully and forcibly deported a series of Roma people and their children back to what are effectively death camps in Kosovo. They are located on top of a great concentration of lead, mercury and other heavy metals where children have been dying for years under the administration of the United Nations. Will the Leader bring this matter to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs so the latter might ask for this process to end and lodge a protest with the German Government?

Statements on Banking Reports - 15th June 2010

Statements on Banking Reports - 15th June 2010
Senator David Norris: Speaking as a reasonably intelligent but unqualified observer of financial matters, there seems to be nothing new in either report. They confirm what any person with average intelligence could have said and rightly did say. They are not explosive in terms of their intellectual content, irrespective of the political reception with which they were met.

Reference, some charming, has been made to the staff of the Department of Finance. Sometime ago I asked in the House about the qualifications of departmental personnel because I had heard on a radio programme that only a small proportion had an advanced qualification in economics. I understood this to be the position, more or less. I do not intend my comments to be taken personally, but for many years I raised the point that the Department of Finance’s forecasts were routinely off the mark. I wondered why and was concerned long before this crisis.

Today we again heard about the importance of the word “systemic”. Time and again I stated in the House my concern in this regard. We seem to be propping up the system, yet a more radical examination of it is required, not only domestically but also internationally. We are witnessing the biggest, the most massive, transfer of money from the poor into the pockets of the rich that I have known in my time in politics. With the assistance of the corrupt banks and rating agencies, the State is behaving as a type of inverted Robin Hood, that is, stealing from the poor to satisfy the exorbitant appetites of the wealthy and people of considerable financial influence.

Will the Minister of State ask for an investigation into a matter I raised on the Adjournment some weeks ago when I was able to demonstrate incontrovertibly that there had been significant violations of liquidity regulations by one of the principal banks in the International Financial Services Centre? This went unremarked upon in the Irish media until it was taken up by Süddeutsche Zeitung, then by the Sunday Business Post and The Irish Times in a page-long article that, while not referring to the Seanad, relied heavily on the information I had brought to the attention of the House.

The Minister of State’s speech was interesting in that it clearly was spin. There was virtually nothing in it, except for a watered down account of the two reports. That he referred to Government involvement only once was interesting. He stated: “While Ireland’s banking crisis has been influenced by global events, it is clear that in various ways bank practices and governance failings, taken together with Government policies and weak financial supervision, seriously exacerbated Ireland’s credit and property boom,” etc. In only one sentence did he state the Government had been found to be complicit.

The Minister of State also said: “The Government fully endorses the conclusions of the preliminary reports prepared by the Governor of the Central Bank and Messrs Regling and Watson.” Let us consider what Messrs Regling and Watson wrote. Page 5 of the executive summary reads: “Ireland’s banking crisis bears the clear imprint of global influences, yet it was in crucial ways ‘home-made’”. The Government accepts the latter point. On the Order of Business, Senator Harris suggested the entire matter was an economic difficulty that Ireland encountered like a contagion. He suggested it was similar to isolating our analysis of fascism in the 1930s to only one country while ignoring the fact that other countries such as Italy, Spain and Germany were also involved in fascism. This was disingenuous in the light of what was stated in the report.

Regarding the conditions, we had a boom and unprecedented access to cross-border funding, that is, borrowing internationally at comparatively low interest rates. The banks should have been able to resist this temptation. Surely they should have known better than to do what they did, which was to borrow significantly in international markets and punt it on property speculation, while ignoring and trampling on their ordinary customers. Now that they have been broken by the casino, they revert to the ordinary citizens of Ireland and put their hands in their pockets.

The intrusion of foreign banks resulted in extra competition, but the banks did not examine where that was leading them. I have spoken about competition many times in the House. It is not the unrelieved benefit that some believe it to be. Here is another classic example of how competition was used against the interests of ordinary people. When we hit a snag, the market forces that were supposed to prevail were suspended in the interests of the big boys.

The same page of the report reads: “There was scope to mitigate the risks of a boom-bust cycle”. It did not happen. Instead, “official policies and banking practices in some cases added fuel to the fire”. This is a clear identification of Government policy as being largely to blame. The Government “should have done more to dampen the powerful monetary and liquidity impulses that were stimulating the economy”. Instead, “the pattern of tax cuts left revenues increasingly fragile, since they were dependent on taxes driven by the property sector”. Once again, we return to the issue of the property bubble. The report reads: “Ireland was also unusual in having tax deductibility for mortgages, and significant and distortive subsidies”. This is not exactly stating there was a large international crisis and that we were somehow caught in the tempest. It states there were clear and detectable domestic problems that should have been indicated. The report uses the wonderful phrase, “This was a plain vanilla property bubble”. Apparently, the Government was immune to the taste of plain vanilla bubbles and did not notice that what it was sucking was toxic.

I am delighted to see the rating agencies mentioned on page 16 of the report. As I have stated time and again, they are a collection of crooks — Standard & Poor’s, Fitch and Moody. Fitch is a wonderful name. These were the people who helped to manufacture some of the toxic products and were paid for rating them. How is that for a lark? I wish we could all get away with this. It is a form of corruption, but what are we doing about it? I am glad that, two years after I raised the issue, it will be examined to determine whether something should be done. Why should ordinary people pay for this dubious practice?

The report cites one or two aspects as being good, for example, the creation of the National Pensions Reserve Fund. I agree. The report reads: “Errors of judgement in bank management and governance contributed centrally to Ireland’s financial crisis”. They most certainly did; therefore, let us examine a few of them.

I would like a few more minutes, if that is possible. No one else seems to be that interested.

Senator David Norris: During May and June 2007 an inspection of commercial property lending in Bank A found that 28% of the loans had breached the bank’s credit policy, but inspectors reported no high priority issues. Nearly one third of the bank’s loans were rotten, yet they were not worried about them. In December 2007 inspectors were told that lenders had no concerns about the ability of five large commercial property borrowers at five institutions to meet future repayments. Professor Honohan’s report reads: “This optimism subsequently proved in all cases to have been mistaken”. This would be laughable were the situation not so desperately serious.

I raise the question of the scope of the report.

On page 13 — unlucky for some — the Governor of the Central Bank, Professor Honohan, a distinguished man from my own university, states: “While the final guarantee decision was taken under pressure of events, the meetings on the night of 29/30 September 2008 were the culmination of an intensive series of interagency meetingsthat had been taking place, and had greatly intensified...”. He goes on, and I hope the Minister will comment in his reply, to state: “Despite the relative absence of detailed written records, it is clear that the meetings during this period, which involved substantial legal work, made the authorities increasingly better prepared to act as the weeks unfolded”.

This was a series of crisis meetings on the most extraordinary night in the financial history of this State and apparently there are no written records of it. Why? If legal opinion was sought and gained, where are the legal records? We are entitled to know, and I want that night to be investigated.


Senator John Paul Phelan: Hear, hear.


Senator David Norris: It is extraordinary that we should not investigate this and that there should be an absence of documentation about the most serious decisions for the financial future of this country that were ever taken.


Senator John Paul Phelan: Hear, hear.


Senator David Norris: It is just unbelievable, and the Minister continues to state there might be some slight Government involvement but it was really all about the macro-economic situation——


Senator Paul Coghlan: The Senator may have two minutes of my time if it would help him.


Senator David Norris: I thank Senator Coghlan very much.


Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson: He has already had two minutes.


Senator David Norris: ——leaving senior management in place while providing an open-ended guarantee to two institutions which it should have been clear were on the road to insolvency. We have two banks going bust, and we leave the people responsible for it in the saddle. It is absolutely unbelievable that this should happen and for that reason I am astonished there is such a lack of electricity in the air here tonight because it seems extraordinary that we should tolerate this situation.

There is so much spin. I do not want spin on either side. I do not like political footballs being played but for the Government to pretend it was not its fault or to say it was caught in a tsunami is wrong. No, Minister, it was not a tsunami. It was man-made and the two reports, which the Minister said in his own speech the Government accepts fully, condemn the Government’s policies in all but a few tiny and insignificant areas.

Order of Business - 15th June 2010

Order of Business - 15th June 2010
Senator David Norris: I agree with Senator Fitzgerald regarding her concern about the state of the country’s finances and the reports we have received and it is a pity that these inquiries will not take in what one might call “the night of the long fangs” when the bankers secretly visited the sources of power here and sank their teeth into the bank accounts of ordinary, decent citizens. I look forward to some discussion on that but it is a great shame.

I agree 100% with Senator Cummins. I was astonished that this House was prorogued last week and that the newspapers at least appeared to suggest this was all to facilitate a golfing excursion. That certainly brings the entire House into discredit and even yesterday the Order of Business was suddenly amended in order that instead of taking the statements on the banking reports tomorrow, we would take them today.

Will the Leader communicate with the Minister for Foreign Affairs about security provisions for visiting political dignitaries? I seek a debate on foot of the situation that emerged at the Institute of European Affairs last week when the Iranian Foreign Minister visited in the company of a group of his own thugs who were acting as security people. They beat up members of the public who were protesting outside the building about the attitudes and behaviour of the Iranian Government. It is not acceptable that the mercenaries of a foreign state should beat up Irish people on their own streets and I would like an explanation about how this was allowed to happen. I understand the Institute of European Affairs was requested by the Department of Foreign Affairs to host this meeting and I doubt if its officials were enthusiastic about it, particularly in light of what I heard. The delegation entered the building, were met by the head of the operation, a very distinguished former Irish diplomat, Ms Jill O’Donoghue, and they asked to see the boss. When they were told this was the boss, they asked to see the “real boss, the man”. It is about time the Iranian people were told what Irish society is really like, and that we do not appreciate this type of ignorant barbarism.

Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010 - Report and Final Stages - 3rd June 2010

Energy (Biofuel Obligation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010 (Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil)
3rd June 2010
An Cathaoirleach: The Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, is welcome to the House. This is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 113, it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question, "That the Bill be received for final consideration," the Minister may explain the purpose of the amendments made by the Dáil. This is looked upon as the report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. For the convenience of Senators, I have arranged for the printing and circulation to them of the amendments. The Minister will deal separately with the subject matter of each related group of amendments. I have also circulated the proposed groupings. A Senator may contribute once on each grouping. I remind Senators that the only matters that may be discussed are the amendments made by the Dáil.


Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."


Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Eamon Ryan): The amendment in group 1 is inserted for further clarification purposes and I propose that it be accepted. It is largely technical in nature.


Senator David Norris: If I am correct, this has to do with the commencement date of 1 July. This is extremely important because I have been advised that the Bill will not carry the same weight in supporting the bio-fuel industry, particularly in the Wexford-Waterford area, if the commencement date is not fixed clearly as 1 July. I have just received the amendments and I am assuming that is the case. Will the Minister indicate whether I am right in assuming it relates to the commencement date of 1 July? If I am and as I have only one opportunity to speak, I emphasise the urgency attached to having that date included in the legislation. Otherwise, it will fail in a significant measure in terms of what was considered to be its main impact, particularly as the amendments were suggested first here in this House.


Deputy Eamon Ryan: I am happy to confirm the Senator's view that the amendment allows for commencement of the Bill on 1 July.


Senator David Norris: It will commence on that date.


Deputy Eamon Ryan: Yes.


Senator David Norris: I thank the Minister.


Senator Joe O'Reilly: The point was well made by Senator Norris and does not merit repeating, but I express my happiness that the Bill will commence on that date. Speed is of the essence in this regard, as the industry has been telling us from the word go.

Senator Jim Walsh: I endorse what the Senators have said. I received confirmation that this would be the case and that the Bill would be applicable from that date. I am aware that Green Energy Ireland based in New Ross, one of the very few bioenergy producing companies, is doing quite well and that it is necessary for it to be able to continue and remain competitive. Regarding excise duty, anything that can be done to promote the industry and future investment in this sector should be looked upon as favourably as possible.

Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): We now move to group 2, miscellaneous drafting amendments, amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, 8, 9, 12, 13, 26 and 27.


Deputy Eamon Ryan: The amendments in group 2 are largely drafting amendments and technical in nature. They are inserted for clarification purposes and I hope they will be accepted on that basis.

Senator Joe O'Reilly: I welcome the amendments. With the developments in information technology, it is important that information on the specifics of bio-fuel production is made readily available and easily accessed. That is important for clarity purposes and to ensure a level of transparency. On that basis, I welcome the amendments and accept them as progressive.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I appreciate the Senator's support. I agree with him on the points he made on information technology and its importance in every aspect of life.


Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): We move to group 3, specified amount and percentage rate, the subject matter of amendments Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, and 14 to 25, inclusive.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: Amendment No. 5 is inserted for further clarity purposes regarding the value of each bio-fuel certificate to each litre of bio-fuel to ensure compliance with the obligation. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are made for further clarity purposes as a follow-up on amendment No. 5. The subsequent amendments Nos. 14 to 25, inclusive, are consequential technical amendments arising from the insertion of amendment No. 5. These amendments are brought forward on the basis of contacts with the industry which raised a question on the extant draft being open to interpretation. The amendments are designed to remove that doubt and I propose that they be accepted on that basis.


Senator Joe O'Reilly: I refer to amendments Nos. 5 and 6 which state each obligated party must ensure a specified amount of its road transport fuel is made up of bio-fuel. This amount will be calculated in litres and, according to amendment No. 6, will not exceed 4.166% of a fossil fuel element in the final blend. The problem with this amendment is an issue might arise with domestic producers struggling to meet market demand. That is a real concern. If the figure of 4% was to be decreased or even increased at any stage, the impact it would have on domestic production would be severe, to say the least. It must be ensured, therefore, that domestic producers will be ble to cater for any changes, in particular increases. To date, 70% of the bio-fuel supplied has been imported. As I said in the debates on Second and Committee Stages, we must ensure we move from imported to domestically produced bio-fuels or raw materials. Therefore, Ireland's capacity to engage in domestic production must be assessed thoroughly. We must not make it disadvantageous for Irish farmers to enter the bio-fuel production market. The production of bio-fuel crops will be a lifeline for many of our cash-strapped farmers. It is a positive step in terms of the benefits for our farmers and we must strive to ensure it will remain a positive experience for them. We want to encourage domestic production and get the farming community on board. We want to see the bio-fuels used in Ireland produced here. That is the reason I believe strongly that the capacity of domestic producers to meet market increases must be assessed and conditions put in place to make it as beneficial as possible for farmers to produce bio-fuels to be used here.
End of Take
It is important to note in the case of tariff rates that some level of regard needs to be given to what other countries are doing, in particular European countries such as Spain, Germany and Portugal, and beyond, such as Brazil.
It would be prudent and good practice to consider what other member states are doing before a concrete decision is made on the percentage of bio-fuels coming from domestic production in this country. This is necessary for the protection of the very people who will be producing the bio-fuel crops, namely farmers. If we are truly committed to encouraging the domestic production of bio-fuels in Ireland, we must ensure Irish farmers do not feel that they are taking an unnecessary risk before a concrete decision is made on the percentage of bio-fuel coming from domestic production in this country. This is necessary for the protection of farmers who will produce the bio-fuel crops and to whom a high level of protection needs to be given.


Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): I apologise to Senator Norris, who has indicated he wishes to speak, and to Senators Walsh and O'Reilly. I must suspend the House as the Minister is required for a vote and there are no pairs available from the Opposition. Is it agreed to suspend while the Minister votes and to resume immediately thereafter? Agreed.

Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): I call Senator Walsh on the third group of amendments.


Senator Jim Walsh: Following on what Senator O'Reilly said, all we were doing on the various Stages of this Bill was echoing the sentiments of the Minister that the percentage levels should be set commensurate with encouraging investment in this bio-energy area. We must shift towards more domestically produced and manufactured products rather than imported products. We are concerned in particular about products from outside the EU being imported which would disadvantage the domestic market. There could be issues to do with sustainable energy with regard to Brazil. I endorse the points made. If there are to be future changes in the rates, it would be imperative such changes would continue to promote an increase in production. One of the biggest challenges this State will face will be to reduce the level of unemployment. It is unfortunate that a recession which has been triggered by a financial collapse creates a longer period before a return to growth and the generation of employment. This should be the focus of all our attention.

Senator David Norris: While I understand the prudent caution of Senator O'Reilly, I am fairly confident in the young but very dynamic bio-fuels industry that has been established particularly in the region of County Wexford. It is important we understand that this is within the European context and it is a requirement under European directives among other things. That makes this very important legislation because it introduces for the first time a bio-fuel obligation within the Irish regime, under the terms of which there will be an initial bio-fuel penetration rate of 4.166% and this is to be increased over the years in line with targets set by the European Union. The intention is that by 2020, we will have a 10% penetration of the market, in other words, that 10% of the constituents of diesel, for example, will have to be bio-fuel. As a result of the passage of this Bill, which I expect today, from 1 July 2010, all petrol and diesel on sale in the country will have to include at least 4.166% and that is the important figure mentioned by the Minister. The implication of this provision is serious. It means that 220 million litres of fossil fuel will be substituted with bio-fuels and this will increase to 500 million litres by 2020. This is to be welcomed, despite the caution expressed prudently by Senator O'Reilly. It is good for our environment. We have agreed to reduce carbon emissions as part of our international environmental commitments and I know both the Minister and the Green Party are passionate on this issue. An important step towards reaching the goals will be to increase the use of sustainable and renewable energies which include bio-fuels. It means we will be taking a considerable amount of fossil fuels out of vehicle engines and this has certain positive benefits in terms of the lifespan of the engines and provides for greater lubricity.
Our reliance on importation will be lessened. When these amendments were first mooted in the House we spoke at length about the situation regarding Brazil, for example. The lessening of our dependence is a significant factor in terms both of the economy and of the environment.
A number of speakers mentioned the plant at New Ross. We should pay tribute to the people involved in this project. It also involves the wider community because this company, Green Biofuels, based in New Ross, employs 22 people and this number will be expanded. The figures mentioned in the House were 1,000 jobs and I hope this will happen, particularly in the Waterford-Wexford area where there has been a significant number of industrial closedowns. Also involved is the Wexford farmers' co-operative involving the interests of 4,000 farmers in that area. Waste materials will be used to manufacture this renewable diesel substitute. I have been reliably informed - I believe and hope this information is accurate - this company will be able to produce more than 34 million litres of bio-fuel annually. It is a useful absorption of a number of waste products such as oils of various kinds, including cooking oil and this makes it a second generation bio-fuel.
Senator David Norris



When it is produced, this is equal to minimum savings of 90,000 tonnes of CO2 annually. It was suggested in a previous briefing that this manufacturing technique is so modern and sophisticated that they can capture that release of gas as another by-product. Therefore, the savings of 90,000 tonnes of CO2 mean that we will not have to import this kind of gas in such quantities. It is the equivalent of taking 25,000 cars off the road, which is a significant contribution. It is a high-tech, indigenous growth industry that reduces carbon emissions and is environmentally positive. In addition, it has a series of advantages over the conventional mineral diesel fuels. For example, it is a clean-burning alternative to mineral diesel fuel and is produced from renewable sources. It is non-toxic and biodegradable. Unlike the stuff that is currently pouring into the Gulf of Mexico, it will disappear relatively quickly and easily. It dissolves in water faster than sugar.
I mentioned its impact on engine parts, which is another aspect we need to examine. I have a very old car and am delighted with it. I deprecate the idea of disposability and built-in or planned obsolescence so that things degrade by design. Nowadays, television sets and washing machines last for about three or four years because the parts are designed to wear out. The new system means that items such as motor cars can be kept for longer. It is using an alternative fuel and requires no engine modification. Unlike some other alternative measures pertaining to electricity, which are also useful, one does not have to produce new cars or modify old ones. It can be used in existing vehicles. It does not affect engine performance and has greater lubricity than fossil diesel, so it prolongs engine life. Taking into account Senator O'Reilly's prudent hesitations, I am confident about this proposal. Now that we are on the cusp of passing this legislation, perhaps the Minister could indicate whether he feels confident that the indigenous industry will be able to satisfy the market and supply this new and exciting material to industry in the required quantities.


Deputy Eamon Ryan: To answer the Senator's point, I am confident we can do so. On Senator O'Reilly's point, this should and will be reviewed as we see the practical experience. There are provisions within the legislation for us to continue to adjust via a statutory instrument and with the proper review process where necessary. We are on a path towards increasing our level of transport fuels from renewable sources to 10% by 2020. We are starting at a level which we think is the right pitch to make it easier for people to establish and get going. I would like to see domestic production being supported in particular. Subject to the experience, we can continue to adjust and review so that it will allow for further expansion and greater employment as well as a reduction in emissions and imports. The level at which we are starting is the right one. It can and will be reviewed, but by statutory means that will take into account domestic production and international experience.


Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): Group 4 concerns material used to produce bio-fuel. This is the subject matter of amendments Nos. 10 and 11.


Deputy Eamon Ryan: This addition is made to clarify the bio-fuel produced from non-food cellulosic material. Cellulosic material or algae can also be considered eligible for certification under the obligation. These bio-fuels are classified as second generation bio-fuels and, as such, do not compete with food crops of land or resources. Given that we have dealt with drafting questions, we can now insert these into the Bill. Reflecting their importance, these fuels will receive double certificates under the scheme and I therefore propose that these amendments be accepted.

Senator David Norris: As I understand it, this will include additional materials and not those originally contemplated such as fuel oils. I very much welcome that. With the indulgence of the House, I would like to tell the Minister a story.


Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): Once there is an end to it.

Senator David Norris: Not only is there an end to it, more importantly there is a point to it which relates directly to these amendments. Last week, I flew down to Cork and was driven to the Sacred Heart school in Clonakilty. I saw a number of exciting transition year projects there, but one of them relates directly to this. I felt extraordinary hope in the young people of Ireland when I met a group of young women in their mid-teens. They had isolated a problem concerning the growth of sea lettuce, which is a form of seaweed. In small quantities it is attractive enough in the water. As a result of the excessively rich nutrients from farmland slurry, there is a huge bloom of this form of seaweed around the Cork coast. It lodges on the shoreline and when it becomes heated in the sunshine, it creates an unpleasant odour. These young women isolated the problem, examined it, collected some of the material involved, processed it and compressed it into briquettes. They found that these briquettes burned for twice as long as peat briquettes while giving the same fuel and heat equivalents. I thought that research was stunning and brilliant. Those young people examined a problem and turned it into an advantage.
I am mentioning this example because one of the materials involved is classified as algae and seaweed. Can the Minister indicate if that is correct?


Deputy Eamon Ryan: Yes.


Senator David Norris: Good. I now come back to my old pals who have been briefing me - Green Biofuels. They are exploring ways to produce bio-fuel from algae and seaweed. They are following the lead of the transition year students in the Sacred Heart school in Clonakilty. They are involved in a research and development project into the use of algae and seaweed oils as raw materials for bio-fuel production. This will be considered as a third generation bio-fuel and they expect it to become commercially available in the next three to five years. They are also involved in research with a number of other institutions and, in addition, have secured funding for the Marie Curie industry-academia partnerships and pathways funding centre.
I welcome the fact that the Bill is being expanded to include algae and seaweeds. I will read the Minister's reply in the Official Report because I have to attend the meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs which is dealing with the Irish-registered ship, the Rachel Corrie, that is approaching the coast of Palestine.
Deputy Eamon Ryan: I welcome the support of both Senators. I agree with them that this is an area in which we must innovate, take risks, experiment and use scientific research to develop new, alternative, home-grown fuels.

Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): Group 5 concerns consultation on regulations with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This is the subject matter of amendments Nos. 28 to 31, inclusive.


Deputy Eamon Ryan: Amendment No. 28 is included to ensure the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is also included in the list of those to be consulted when regulations are being made under the Bill in regard to bio-fuel standards, as per a suggestion made in this House. Amendments Nos. 29 to 31, inclusive, are consequential technical amendments arising from the insertion of amendment No. 28. I propose that these amendments be accepted.


Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): Group 6 concerns the amendment of the Fuels (Control of Supplies) Act 1982. This is the subject matter of amendments Nos. 32 to 34, inclusive.


Deputy Eamon Ryan: This amendment updates the penalties for an offence under section 7 of the Fuels (Control of Supplies) Act 1982. The Fuels (Control of Supplies) Acts 1971 and 1982 empower the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, in the event of a fuel emergency and on foot of an order made by the Government, to make orders or directions in relation to the control of the acquisition, supply, distribution or marketing of fuels in the State.
Section 7 of the Fuels (Control of Supplies) Act 1982 provides for the appointment of authorised officers in a fuels emergency to inspect premises and obtain information relating to the control of the acquisition, supply, distribution and marketing of fuels. Section 7(3) of that Act provides:
Any person who—
( a ) obstructs or impedes an authorised officer in the exercise of any of the powers conferred on him by this section,
( b ) refuses to produce any record or document which an authorised officer lawfully requires him to produce,
( c ) produces or causes to be produced or knowingly allows to be produced, to an authorised officer any record or document which is false in any material respect knowing it to be false, or
( d ) wilfully fails or refuses to comply with any lawful requirement of an authorised officer under subsection (1)(b) of this section.
shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or, at the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
Given the important role to be played by an authorised officer during the course of a fuels emergency, it is proposed that the penalties provided for under section 7(3) of the 1982 Act will be updated. Amendment No. 32 increases the fine on summary conviction from €634 to €5,000. It also introduces a penalty for conviction on indictment of €20,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both. It also provides for the lifting of the veil of incorporation in respect of an offence under section 7 of the 1982 Act.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 have been inserted for the purposes of verification. I propose that they be accepted.


Senator Joe O'Reilly: I welcome these amendments. Obviously, the inspectorate and the regulations are necessary. When regulations are broken and proper inspections are not complied with, there needs to be a punitive dimension. This proposal is reasonable and necessary if this legislation is to be implemented. I do not think it merits further discussion.


Senator Jim Walsh: While I do not object to this proposal, I would like to raise a red flag for the future consideration of the Minister. It is proposed to lift the corporate veil if an offence takes place "with the consent or connivance of" a manager or secretary within the corporate structure. The corporation would be the main offender, but individuals could also be liable. We should be very careful in this regard. People need to have the protection of limited liability if they to be able to function effectively with a certain element of risk taking. I know what we are trying to get at here. I do not want to labour the point. Regulatory authorities in a range of sectors failed us miserably but were not held to account. In my opinion, they will probably not be held to account. We seem to be applying a different set of criteria to those in the private sector. I hope we can debate this matter at a future stage. Perhaps we can have statements on it. I can see the other side of the coin as well. I accept that people have to act responsibly within companies. Perhaps there should be some exposure. I am just raising it as a matter of concern.


Senator Joe O'Reilly: There has to be control.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I understand the concerns raised by Senator Walsh. We have to get our corporate governance right, more than anything else at the present time. I will heed the Senator's comments and try to ensure a proper balance is struck in the implementation of this Bill.


Question put and agreed to.

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


Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Eamon Ryan): I would like to make some closing comments. I thank Senators. I would like to refer back to the second last group of amendments, in which we provided for consultation with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am reminded of the debate I had with a member of this House, possibly Senator Bradford, when the debate on this Bill commenced approximately two months ago. The legislation has had a very good passage and has benefitted from significant debate in the Seanad and Dáil. I thank Senators for their contributions and my officials for the work they have done. I am sure they will be pleased to see this Bill passed. I look forward to seeing it implemented. I hope it will have real benefits for farmers, industry and the public.

Senator Jim Walsh: I thank the Minister and his officials. We have had a good debate on this Bill. The Minister has been a real champion in this area. Many of the initiatives he has taken will have significant economic benefits in the future. I compliment him and his officials, who have been very helpful.

Senator Joe O'Reilly: I am happy this Bill is being passed. I thank the Minister for his sincerity in responding to our suggestions and engaging in thorough discussions on the amendments we have proposed. We continue to be concerned that every conceivable effort will need to be made in the implementation of this Bill. If we are to give a lifeline to our farmers, encourage domestic processing and create jobs, we will have to use various carrot and stick methods, including regulations and grants, to encourage indigenous production of raw materials for bio-fuels. That was the essential thrust of the amendments we proposed and the comments we made. We support the principle and the purpose of this Bill. I congratulate the Minister on the way he has handled it. It is good that it was initiated in this House. We are very happy about that. I join Senator Walsh in paying tribute to the Minister's officials for their work in this regard. I thank the Minister. I hope we can initiate more legislation of this nature in the Seanad. I am heartened by the Minister's comment that this House is very serious about teasing out legislation and doing a genuine job. We welcome any opportunity to do so.

Order of Business - 3rd June 2010

Order of Business – 3rd June 2010
Senator David Norris: My colleagues, Senators Ó Murchú, Hanafin, Walsh and Mullen, waxed eloquently, if misguidedly and irrationally, about conscience. I invite them to join me in voting against the Bill if their consciences are real and it is not just a stunt. I will vote against the Bill because, as it stands, it will do violence against children. Let them take the consequences, if they have such consciences.
An Cathaoirleach: A question for the Deputy Leader, please.
Senator David Norris: I support the calls of various Members for a debate on the question of integrity in politics and the current situation regarding one Member of this House. While Senator Callely can be invited to make a statement, he cannot be compelled to do so. He was appointed by the Taoiseach, not elected, and I do not believe the Taoiseach has the power to remove him, although he may remove the whip. A statement was made yesterday, but it was meaningless, vapid, self-serving and worthless. The facts should be clear - the Senator either lived in Cork or in Dublin. Those are the stark alternatives and it should not be beyond anybody's intelligence to establish the facts, despite the attempt to confuse the issue by using words such as "abode", "residence" and so forth. I hope this debate will take place. It would be appropriate.
I welcome the fact that the European Union is, at last, addressing the issue of the ratings agencies Standard & Poor's, Fitch and Moody's. I have been calling for this for the last 18 months but have been blithely ignored by the media. Some of the media finally appear to be catching up, but I wish they had done so earlier. It appeared to be the perfectly logical thing to do and I hope the European Union will be successful in its efforts to contain the damage done by these discredited institutions.

Statements on the Interception of Gaza-bound Humanitarian Flotilla - 2nd June 2010

Statements on the Interception of Gaza-bound Humanitarian Flotilla - 2nd June 2010.
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister to the House for the debate on this timely motion. I agree with him that one should, first, express one's sympathy to the relatives of the dead and the injured in what was undoubtedly an act of piracy which took place on the high seas. It was suggested Israel was in some measure under threat, but that calls into question the nature of the regime within Israel. We are always told that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. This has become the mantra. It has some democratic elements, including some that I welcome. However, one should now start to deconstruct the nature of that democracy. The Israelis have behaved in a way that had it been done by the Somalian pirates, a NATO task force would immediately have been sent to deal with them. However, because it concerned a state backed by the United States, they seem to be able to get away with it. The response of the Obama Administration has been timid in the extreme.
I welcome today's reports that a member of the Israeli Embassy staff is to be expelled as a result of involvement in passport forgery for the purposes of committing murder. These are the things that should be taken into consideration.
It would be a useful academic exercise to examine the language employed by Israeli diplomats and Ministers who have an extremely effective propaganda machine. They are the world leaders in PR, which is extraordinarily glib. They force language into the most unusual contortions. For example, this small group of tiny vessels carrying concrete, toys and wheelchairs is described as "an armada of hate and violence". I heard Mr. Ayalon say some did not like to be in the presence of Israelis; we all know what that means. It means that anybody who opposes the horrendous and barbaric policies of the regime in Israel is, ipso facto, anti-Semitic. It is, however, very difficult to maintain that the reactions to these events are anti-Semitic. I remember that one of the passengers aboard a previous convoy was an 83-year old concentration camp survivor. In what way was she anti-Semitic? Are the Hasidic Jews who demonstrated yesterday with placards at the Cenotaph in London anti-Semitic? They held up placards calling on the Zionist state to cease its criminal activities, siege and blockade. That language system needs to be examined.
The Israeli authorities are even proposing to deport certain individuals, having imported them first. Is this the new way? They kidnap people, force them to enter the country and then attempt to criminalise them for illegal entry. Surely somebody sees the contradictions.
I heard another Israeli spokesman on radio recently say that under Article 47 of the foundation document of the United Nations, a blockade was permissible. There is no reference to blockades in that article which I heard the former Irish diplomat, Mr. Noel Dorr, read out in its entirety on radio. The key point, however, is that they are not afraid of violence. Of course, the people involved resisted when they were set upon by a collection of brigands, but I thought it was a bit thick. They talked about slings and a few kitchen knives being used against the most sophisticated arms one could have in the hands of these very violent young paratroopers.
I wonder if they are aware of one of Seán O'Casey's works in which an Irish republican says in a similar situation: "Do they want us to come out in our pelts and throw stones at them?". That is basically what the Palestinians have been reduced to. They are not just afraid of the kind of propaganda coup which, despite their brilliance, they have handed the Palestinians on a plate. They are also worried that the blockade might be broken by this. It should be broken because it is illegal under international law. It is a humanitarian disgrace. It has enabled the Israelis to do things under the cover of darkness. If their own people knew about such things, they would be horrified. People are living in raw sewage. The excrement and urine of 1.5 million people is going untreated into the sea.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is taking some of Senator Quinn's time.
Senator David Norris: I am sure he will allow me to take another 30 seconds or so. The alleged firing of rockets is another lie. The rockets ceased. The Hamas ceasefire was provoked by an Israeli military incursion. I have put all this stuff on the record. We have seen the Goldstone report. The Minister's contribution was very good. Now is the time for action. Mr. Justice Goldstone, who is Jewish, has warned that this will be repeated again and again if it is not acted on. If it is not referred to the criminal court, it will come back again and again. There are things we can do. I have argued for years that the failure to monitor the EuroMed agreement, to which human rights protocols are attached, brings the whole idea of human rights into complete and utter contempt. In recent weeks Ireland had an opportunity to veto the entry of Israel into the OECD.
An Cathaoirleach: The total time will be gone soon.
Senator David Norris: Do not worry about that.
An Cathaoirleach: I am not worried. It is Senator Quinn who is worried.
Senator David Norris: Why did we choose not to veto it? That is something we could have done. Instead, we are discussing an enhanced financial arrangement with Israel. Perhaps it is all just words. We need to end the words and get a bit of action.
Deputy Micheál Martin: We are not discussing an enhanced financial arrangement with Israel.
Senator Feargal Quinn: I thank Senator Norris for allowing me to share his time. Like all Members of the House, I agree with the Minister's expression of sympathy for those who have died. I support the Minister's final remarks in which he called for an impartial, credible and transparent investigation that conforms to international standards. I do not support him when he asks "Who now could possibly argue that preventing this cargo from reaching Gaza was so important?". I suggest that anyone who thought it should reach Gaza was not thinking straight. I am told that for the last five years, Israel has been subjected to at least 10,000 bombs and rockets from Gaza. Did anyone really expect a democratic country like Israel to allow a flotilla of ships to come in and go straight to Gaza without any inspection? I do not think that was possible.
Senator David Norris: There was inspection.
Senator Feargal Quinn: Does anyone believe these ships could be allowed to land in Gaza? Does anyone believe it was not acceptable to offer to accept the ships into an Israeli port, to examine them and to transport them into Gaza?
Senator David Norris: I am leaving in protest.
Senator Feargal Quinn: There are some goods that will not be allowed.
Senator David Norris: This is a disgraceful contribution.
Acting Chairman (Senator Maurice Cummins): Senator Quinn, without interruption.
Senator David Norris: I am ashamed of my colleague, Senator Quinn.

Private Members Time on Adult Education - 2nd June 2010

Private Members Time on Adult Education – 2nd June 2010
Senator David Norris: I would like to start on a positive note. I went to Clonakilty, County Cork, a few days ago after the business of the Seanad had concluded. I was driven to meet some transition year students who had completed a couple of remarkable projects. One beautiful girl had assessed the gender-based differences in taste regarding perfume and scent, etc. She tested them very scientifically in a blind test and came up with what turned out to be the formula for Chanel No. 5. This interesting and fun project might also have some degree of commercial application. Much better than that was the project undertaken by a group of young women of approximately 15 years of age who had spotted a local difficulty, the efflorescence of sea lettuce, which is a form of seaweed that had accumulated in the local bay. When it made its way onto the shore, it dried out and stank. They isolated this problem and examined it. When they collected the material in question, they discovered they could treat it and compress it to create briquettes. It burned for twice as long as peat and gave the same heat value.
Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: That is marvellous.
Senator David Norris: Young people with such initiative give hope to our country by being able to turn a problem into an advantage. I spoke last night at a dinner in Trinity College for the disability programme that provides access to the college. The students who attended the dinner were really inspiring. One of them, Rosaleen McDonagh, has been a candidate in my constituency on several occasions. She refused to allow her disadvantages as a Traveller woman in a wheelchair to disbar her from education. I wanted to start with the positives. I praise Donogh O’Malley and all the rest who freed up access. By 2020, if things go right, approximately 70% of leaving certificate students will go on to third level education. That is extraordinary and marvellous.
We cannot rely on clichés. It is not sufficient to talk about people who are wonderfully educated. It is blather. Dr. Craig Barrett punctured that little bubble for us. We are not as great as we think we are. We need to face the problem realistically. If we address it, we will be in a position to capitalise on the talent in this country. We need to look at what happened when access to education was freed up in Northern Ireland, for example. I read the other day about the extraordinary roll call of former pupils of St. Columb’s College in Derry, including John Hume, the musician, Phil Coulter, Seamus Heaney and Seamus Deane. It is possible that none of them would have completed their careers as successfully as they did without the improvements in educational access.
I would like to mention some indicators. Earlier this year, Catherine Dooley and Paul Downes of St. Patrick’s College published a useful and easily accessible document, Lifelong learning opportunities in the workplace for traditionally disadvantaged groups in Ireland. They pointed out that the National Economic and Social Council estimates that 60% of those who will be in the labour force in 2020 are already in employment. In other words, the same people will continue to comprise the majority of the workforce in ten years’ time. They also argued that skills levels need immediate attention. Under the international standard classification of education, 30% of the workforce has level 2 qualifications or less, with 10% of the workforce having level 1 qualifications or no qualifications at all. That is the situation we are at. There is a serious need for the upskilling of low-skilled workers. The document also reported that more than 100,000 people under the age of 30 in the Irish workforce left the education system without the leaving certificate. It found that 18% of young people in the Irish education system leave second level before reaching the leaving certificate. Many of those who leave school early move into low-skilled jobs with very little opportunity for upskilling. If the economic downturn persists, these people will be more exposed because they entered the job market at a low skill level.
We must acknowledge that there is a serious funding problem in the current difficult economic situation. According to an impartial view - I am not quoting partisan groups like Fine Gael, the Labour Party or Fianna Fáil - €4 billion is required to upgrade building space and to provide facilities for an additional 55,000 students over the next decade. We have a reasonably good education system but it is under-resourced. How will it cope with the vast increase in student numbers? In January of this year, 12,000 mature students applied to the CAO. That is more than twice the number of mature students who applied in 2003, which was a mere seven years ago. In the old days, just 60% of such people pursued their initial applications, but that figure has increased to 85%. The stress is getting greater.
I would like to speak about the payment of grants, which is the real nub of the issue. Various allowances are available to mature students, the main ones being the higher education grant and the back to education allowance. Prior to the latest budget, anyone who was in receipt of the back to education allowance could also apply for and receive the higher education grant. This is no longer the case, however, as a result of a budget decision. I want to address that directly. I have been contacted by some mature students who do not have any partisan bias. They would like me to put their experiences on the record. They made the point I have just made, which is that both the back to education allowance and the student maintenance grant were available to all mature students before the last budget. The back to education allowance is the equivalent of a person’s social welfare payment, such as the jobseeker’s benefit of €196 a week. As a result of the budget, mature students starting college in September of this year will no longer be entitled to receive both payments.
In April 2010, the Department of Education and Skills confirmed that people on disability or lone parent payments will be eligible to claim both payments. I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Haughey, will accept that despite that welcome blip, what I have outlined represents a narrowing of educational accessibility. The total amount of money available to all third level institutions for these grants is quite small. If a student wishes to apply for a payment under the student assistance fund, for example, he or she must submit a receipt and fill in an application form. He or she may then have to wait for up to three months to get some money. That causes difficulties for people on tight budgets. As the fund itself is limited, students are not guaranteed this assistance. The total amount available is €5 million. That fund can be accessed by all students, not just mature students. Mature students are now expected to attend third level education while living on their social welfare entitlements alone.
I would like to mention a couple of cases. The first case is that of a woman with five children who lives in rural County Galway and has to travel 80 km a day. She should not be prevented from returning to university simply because she has children. It would be impossible for her to attend university without financial assistance. The second case is that of a young man with three children who has to make a round trip of 20 km. The cost of travel is a factor for both people. It is difficult for them to access university without financial assistance. They have to pay for child care. The woman has to pay someone to mind her five children while she travels 80 km each day. It is impossible for her to do so within the existing grant structure. If one gets just €196 a week, how on earth can one feed and clothe one’s children, get an education and make a long round trip?
These issues do not just apply to Galway. A mature student living in Dublin made a request for their statement to be read to the Joint Committee on Education and Science. I will put it on the record:
I need to explain the magnitude of the decision that people like me have made in undertaking the Access course last September, and what the change in the budget has done. We are mentally, emotionally and financially committed to staying through years of unlimited income in order to achieve a greater goal, in many cases accepting that a place in the workforce is to be suspended until the education is completed. However, we are motivated by success. It is [I think I can safely say this is true of all Access students] our commitment and resourcefulness that have got us this far in our lives, operating often on minimal qualifications, but for which this recession proved to be the final wound. This educational opportunity would position us to excel and shine without the threat of not having a qualification held over us to finally bring to fruition those skills we had developed outside of formal education but which often went unrecognised and unrewarded. For many of us, it is not feasible to continue without experiencing severe hardship and ultimately, I think, many will fail.
That is the dispassionate view of a consumer. The last piece of evidence I would like to give is a letter I discovered in The Irish Times printed on 12 February:
Madam
I am a mature student in an Access course in NUI Galway. This course is designed to get people from a disadvantaged socioeconomic background into third-level education.
When I started this part-time course in September last year, it was on the premise that both the back-to-education allowance and the maintenance grant would be available to me once I started the degree course next September. Indeed it was the availability of these moneys that made going back to college financially possible.
Halfway through my Access course, last month, it emerged that the Government had made cuts in education which means that when I go on to do my arts degree on 10 September, I will not now receive the maintenance grant.
If this continues to be the case, I will no longer be able to pursue my goal of returning to full-time education.
For the Government to expect us mature students, already paying the weekly bills of an independent life, now to incur the added expense of full-time education on top of this, and survive on €196 a week is ludicrous and out of touch with reality.
I am hugely disappointed and feel let down by a Government, which claimed to be committed to education. I could never again give my vote to any of the current Government involved in these unjustified cuts.
I started on an optimistic note, demonstrating from personal experience the talent that lies latent which could be activated in young and mature people. It is fanciful, however, for us to talk about this wonderfully well educated group when, in fact, we do not support it.
Trinity College, Dublin, now ranks in the top 50 world universities, even though it operates on a fraction of the funding Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard and Yale universities receive, a remarkable achievement. We cannot blind ourselves to the difficulties encountered in education, yet we engage in this sentimental waffle about having a wonderfully educated workforce when, in fact, we are falling back. We need to make the investment in education which will relieve the real people whose stories I have related in Seanad Éireann tonight.

Statements on Whistleblowing in the Financial Sector - 2 June 2010

Statements on Whistleblowing in the Financial Sector - 2 June 2010
Senator David Norris: There was a little confusion earlier which I said I would explain. I mentioned to our Whip, Senator O’Toole, that I was interested in this matter and he asked me to lead off. I had agreed to share time with Senator Quinn but then I discovered Senator Ross had a particular interest in the matter and I was happy to yield to him. That was the source of the confusion.

The reason I have an interest in the debate is I have tabled motion No. 16 on the Order Paper which has been seconded by Senators Bacik, Quinn and Mullen on whistleblowing, a serious issue. I have also had direct involvement with two whistleblowing cases and, on both occasions, the persons involved lost their jobs and were not protected, to which I will refer again.

The Minister of State’s contribution was bland and he made a number of worrying comments. He stated, for example, in trying to define “whistleblowing”, it is “usually interpreted to mean the reporting in good faith of a breach or potential breach of the law...”. However, there are other standards such as good governance, morality, the protection of children and so on and they are inadequately covered because the Government parties have withdrawn and retreated from their original position which was to introduce general legislation. They gave a commitment in this regard but then withdrew it under pressure from now discredited financial sources. The Minister of State said, “while one grand-slam piece of legislation to provide blanket protection would be desirable, there were considerable legal obstacles...,” which he did not specify. Perhaps he will mention what these are. Is it not curious that these fanciful objections have not obstructed successful engagement on the neighbouring island, the United Kngdom, where for the past ten years a comprehensive whistleblowing law has been in place and operated without once dragging the system into court? There has not been the slightest legal hitch, which is interesting.

The Minister of State then recited laws that provided a degree of whistleblowers protection. There are 15 in all, but they are patchy and irregular. There is no harmonisation and they do not give the degree of protection required. I will refer to a number of specific instances later. He stated blandly, “Generally, disclosures are protected where they are made in good faith...,” but that is not the case. That is simply not true and it is dangerous to give people a false sense of security that they are protected by legislation when they simply are not. That is where I would start from.

This issue has arisen in the aftermath of a direct call by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. James Hamilton, for the introduction of legislation in this area. It is in my experience highly unusual for an officeholder such as this to engage with the Government in this way. Therefore, it is appropriate to take action. It is three years since a body called the company law review group lobbied against such a proposal. This was an interesting group as it was chaired by Dr. Courtney, a partner in the leading firm of lawyers, Arthur Cox, which does quite a bit of government work. It rejected the idea of a law on whistleblower protection in 2007 stating, ‘“One cannot say that there is any evidence of endemic failure in relation to corporate governance or its enforcement in Ireland that negatively affects the investment climate and which requires enhanced ‘whistleblowing’ provisions.” It is interesting that the group stated there was no evidence of corporate governance queries or problems. Perhaps its members had not heard of the Ansbacher bank, about which I wrote an article in the Evening Herald at the time. Therefore, I knew about it, but, apparently, this group was unaware of it, which suggests a degree of ignorance that might not place its members in the best position to advise a Minister. What about National Irish Bank, Allied Irish Banks, Irish Trust Bank, PMPA and ICI which resulted in the taxpayer bailing out a major financial institution and so on?

A series of whistleblowers in AIB paid the price prior to 2007. Mr. Tony Spollen, group head of internal audit, had to leave after preparing an internal report that the bank faced an estimated €100 million liability over its failure to collect DIRT and he was proved completely right. Whereas politicians and bankers have been asleep on the jobs, there have been useful contributions by commentators in the press recently, in particular, Kathleen Barrington in the Sunday Business Post and John Devitt in The Irish Times. In 2001 Mr. Rupert Walker was sacked by the British subsidiary of AIB, Govett, because he had blown the whistle on dodgy practices within the bank. Former AIB group internal auditor, Mr. Eugene McErlean, was not fired but his contract was not renewed. Senior officials in the bank tried to pin the Rusnak scandal on him in revenge because he had brought to the attention of the board matters, including overcharging and peculiar offshore trading in the bank’s shares. He also brought them to the attention of the Financial Regulator and paid the price.

I raised two cases in the House, one of which related to the former head of ISME whose civil rights have been completely violated. People in Departments lied and suppressed information that was necessary and the Garda obfuscated and they are continuing to do so, despite questions being raised in both Houses. He cannot get justice and lost his job. I also raised the case of a whistleblower in the IFSC who had brought to my attention and that of the House a serious situation regarding a major bank in the centre. Nobody took him up on it until Süddeutsche Zeitung got into it. Where an employee in a bank reports dodgy loans, for example, he or she will not be protected under the proposed legislation. If a nurse innocently and honestly makes a report on bad conduct, she could be sentenced to three years in jail. Does the Minister of State think that is a serious response? He referred to good faith, but I am outlining what is the actual situation. My niece is in a school for special children and assumed to have reported certain bad practices to the HSE. At this moment she is probably in floods of tears in that school in north Dublin as she is being punished for being a whistleblower. Let us not pretend that this legislation is anything other than a farce. It does not do what it states it is going to do and it is clear we should introduce such comprehensive legislation as has successfully worked in other jurisdictions in the past ten years.

Order of Business - 2nd June 2010

Order of Business - 2nd June 2010
Senator David Norris: It is important that Senator Callely come into the House to make a statement. This goes to the heart of the question of integrity in politics and the position, as reported in the newspapers, casts a slur on all of us, which is regrettable. I welcome the highly unusual interest of the media which I hope will be sustained.


Senator Mary M. White: Hear, hear.


Senator David Norris: I will be curious to see if anybody in the Press Gallery today or anybody else in the media-----


Senator Mary M. White: For the first time ever.


Senator David Norris: -----will take a continued interest in the questions raised later-----


An Cathaoirleach: I do not want any comments to be made about anyone in the Press Gallery.


Senator David Norris: -----on the situation in Gaza - a Member of the House, Senator Daly, was actually there - or on whistleblowing, in respect of which I had an important case which only received attention in the Irish media when it was reported in Süddeutsche Zeitung. Let us have more attention, not just for the bad stories but the positive work the Seanad does.


Senator Mary M. White: Hear, hear.


Senator David Norris: I welcome the fact that the Government has withdrawn the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill. It was a disgrace. Two hundred amendments were tabled to it in the Dáil and it was also attacked in this House. It contained serious human rights violations and probably was unconstitutional. In an act of extraordinary political effrontry, the Government sought to continue in office, by name, someone who had been discredited in the appeals tribunal. I am very glad the Bill has been withdrawn and would like the Leader to tell us when the matter will be brought before the House in a proper and decent form.

Will the Leader tell us when the Government will become the last in Europe to ratify the Aarhus Convention? I am very concerned at the statements of Sr. Majella McCarron who said yesterday that the right of Irish citizens to a fair trial and due process was being prejudiced, particularly in the Corrib gas field dispute in the absence of ratification of the convention.

It is my honour to second the amendment to the Order of Business proposed by my colleague, Senator Bacik.

Order of Business - 1st June 2010

Order of Business - 1st June 2010
Senator David Norris. I join my colleagues in welcoming the fact there will be a debate tomorrow on the situation in Gaza. The flotilla of peace attacked by the Israeli defence forces was approaching the coastline of Gaza but was in international waters, which makes this an unprovoked act of piracy on the part of the Israeli authorities. This is now Israel’s equivalent of Bloody Sunday and will turn world opinion massively against it. It remains to be seen, however, whether it will turn governments against it. The Israelis have already started a smear campaign by calling the convoy of ships a “flotilla of hate” and attempting to associate it with Hamas, al-Qaeda and terrorism. We need to be careful about the language used. It also is important to point out that a significant demonstration took place yesterday at the Cenotaph in London at which a group of Hasidic Jews dressed in traditional costumes held up banners that said things like “Judaism rejects the Zionist state and condemns its criminal siege and occupation”. There are voices within international Jewry and within Israel that protest against such violations of human rights and this must be put on the record to stem any attempt to use this event for anti-Semitic purposes.
There are things Members must do. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs discussed the Goldstone report and recommended that it be referred to the International Criminal Court and Members should see this through. As for the EuroMed agreement, there have been items on the Order Paper for a couple of years in which a number of Members, myself included, called for the monitoring of the human rights protocols that are attached to it. They do not even bother. They have turned their faces away and will not see what is happening, which makes a farce of human rights.
Members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs asked in recent weeks that Ireland should consider its position on welcoming Israel into the OECD. While Ireland alone could have vetoed that, we did nothing. Perhaps now there will be some action. As someone who admires Barack Obama, I believe it is time for him to step up to the plate and make America’s position perfectly clear, if they believe in human rights.
Senators: Hear, hear.
Senator David Norris: Human rights exist not only in troubled parts of the world but here in Ireland as well. I listened on the radio to a distressed young woman who had taken rented accommodation and who has a tiny infant child. Her husband took three days’ work and for that they have lost their house because they lost their rent supplement. They were out on the road and their parents took them in. The place is surrounded by ghost houses that could be taken over.
An Cathaoirleach: Time, now. I thank the Senator.
Senator David Norris: At the outset of this crisis, I called for the establishment of a department of home security to protect such people.
An Cathaoirleach: Time, Senator.
Senator David Norris: My final point, on which I will end-----
An Cathaoirleach: No, the time has expired. Senator, please.
Senator David Norris: -----is that they have been told that, were they to separate, the council would house them. So much for the support of marriage in this wonderful country.
An Cathaoirleach: I thank the Senator and call Senator Glynn.