Senator David Norris - My Blog

Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill 2008 - Committee Stage - 1st December 2010

2010-12-17T15:00:00.000Z

Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill 2008 - Committee Stage - 1 December 2010
Senator David Norris: While I continue to support Senator Bacik and hope we can come to a speedy resolution of the amendment, I retain my view that suspicion is an element in the formation of an opinion. I am aware of the extremely serious case to which the Senator referred which involved a very brave woman. It is astonishing that no one spoke out previously at the hospital in question given the appalling practices and completely unnecessary operations, including symphysiotomy, which were carried out there.

Senator Ivana Bacik: They were afraid to speak out.

Senator David Norris: I understand the young woman observed developments for some time and formed an opinion as a result of a suspicion. This argument does not support Senator Bacik’s case in quite the degree she believes because——

Senator Ivana Bacik: If I may clarify the issue for the Senator, I was referring to general protection for whistleblowers and pointing out that whistleblowers in the health service and hospitals may fall between the gaps of the specific statutes to which the Minister referred. That is the problem with the sectoral approach. I was not referring to the opinion-suspicion issue.

Senator David Norris: Most whistleblowers are very serious people. They do not decide they do not like the look of a fellow, wonder if he has been up to something odd and make a report against him. All those with whom I have dealt are serious people who progressed from suspicion to opinion, as is appropriate. At the same time, I am pleased to support the amendments, although the Minister appears to be completely unwilling to take them on board.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I have been very engaged by the previous speakers’ comments. Having considered Senator Bacik’s argument, I am starting to lean against her proposition to introduce the word “suspicion” given what can happen when people are irresponsible in the formation of a certain opinion. Be that as it may, while I may have misunderstood Senator Regan, having thought about his argument, I am not sure the inclusion of the words “false, misleading, frivolous or vexatious”, which are the subject of several amendments in my name, necessarily implies that the Government’s definition of the word “opinion” does not encompass suspicion. What is at issue is the question of deceit and the possibility that a person may pretend to communicate an opinion or suspicion in good faith knowing that what he or she is saying is false, misleading, frivolous or vexatious. On reflection, I am not sure Senator Regan is correct although I am engaging with him rather than offering a definitive opinion.

Senator David Norris: I am delighted Senator Mullen has thoroughly undermined his amendment. He invoked deceit and referred to people misleading and so forth.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We are not discussing Senator Mullen’s amendment.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I will offer a rationale for my amendment in due course.

Senator David Norris: I will be interested to hear the Senator’s rationale, if he possesses one, which I doubt. I do not intend that as a personal comment.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: I cannot put the matter further than to state that, having discussed this issue with the Parliamentary Counsel, the word “opinion” encompasses actual knowledge or suspicion. I appear to be getting some support for that view from Senator Norris and, to a lesser extent, Senator Mullen.

I may have formed the wrong impression of Senator Bacik’s contribution and stand open to correction on the matter. Is she suggesting we provide that someone should be able to recklessly make an opinion or suspicion?

Senator Ivana Bacik: No.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: I understood the Senator was making such a suggestion. We need to be very careful because a balance must be struck between the right and duty of a whistleblower to come forward and the need to ensure people do not make accusations which traduce the good name of another individual.

Senator David Norris: That matter is addressed in the next amendment, which I was rebuked for discussing.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: It is for this reason the question of whether the word “opinion” encompasses everything would ultimately be determined by the court on the basis of the level of knowledge of the person concerned.

Senator Regan may correct me if I am wrong but is he suggesting that one cannot have a false or misleading suspicion? I believe suspicions can be false or misleading. For this reason, I do not get the Senator’s point. If one starts defining the word “opinion”, which I have not seen defined in any other legislation——

Senator David Norris: The Minister is on dangerous ground.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: I hazard a guess that it would be beyond the wit of the Oireachtas to define the word “opinion” in a manner sufficient to allow it to be legally parsed and analysed in a court case. Ultimately, the matter should be left to the courts to decide.

Senator David Norris: Of its very nature, an opinion is open to being incorrect or false. That must be the case.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: Yes.

Senator Eugene Regan: The Minister purports to define the word “opinion” as including suspicion while at the same time arguing——

Deputy Dermot Ahern: No, I stated that in the opinion of the Parliamentary Counsel the word “opinion” encompasses suspicion.

Senator Eugene Regan: I remind the Minister that I have the floor. He purports to define the word “opinion”. All I am suggesting is that the word should be defined in the legislation. By using only the word “opinion” and not making it clear that it includes suspicion, one places the onus on the whistleblower to be sure of his or her ground before voicing a concern.

Let us consider the history of sexual abuse in our institutions. The Minister referred to someone making accusations that damage the good name of individuals. That is exactly what was said to children and other people who raised concerns and suspicions about these types of activities. It is a fundamental issue.

Senator David Norris: Well done. That is a very good point.

Senator Eugene Regan: The onus should not be on the individual with the suspicion because he or she is usually the weaker person who does not have the means to check out the facts but has a genuine concern and suspicion that something wrong is being done. It is for others in authority to check the matter out and it is important that those suspicions be taken up and acted upon. However, such an action is closed off by the way this is framed. The onus is placed on and a criminal sanction framed in the Bill for the whistleblower. Be careful of one’s ground before voicing one’s suspicion

Senator Ivana Bacik: Senator Regan has put it very well by saying the Minister’s wording places the onus on the whistleblower to be sure of his or her ground before making allegations. He pointed out, rightly, that it was the culture of non-disclosure of sexual abuse in institutions that led to so much suffering for so many children for so long. In Ireland more generally there has been a culture of non-disclosure. We must be clear about the context, not only in regard to institutional sexual abuse or medical malpractice cases such as I raised, in planning corruption or malpractice in banks and financial institutions——

Senator Eugene Regan: Political corruption.

Senator Ivana Bacik: Political corruption. In all these areas there has been a culture of non-disclosure and in the past an absence of any sense of protection for whistleblowers. The Minister is right. We must have a balance and the good name of people must be protected. The balance went far too much the other way, however, and against giving any protection to a whistleblower who discloses in good faith. The amendment I propose, with the support of Senator Regan, would clarify for potential whistleblowers that they would be protected even if they did not have the full knowledge they thought they had. I think of all those people who disclosed planning corruption who were very sure they had seen envelopes change hands or that fraud had taken place but could not be absolutely certain because that is the nature of the kind of practice they were disclosing. It is done in secret. We must be careful not to create a perception that the onus on the whistleblower is so heavy that he or she must be absolutely certain before making any disclosure.

I support the Minister’s wording in section 8A(1)(a) which states that a whistleblower is not protected if he or she has been reckless as to whether an allegation was false, misleading, frivolous or vexatious. That preserves a balance. I do not agree with Senator Mullen’s amendment which would remove those words.

Senator David Norris: I thought I had persuaded the Senator.

Senator Ivana Bacik: When I read the wording again, I was sure——

Senator Rónán Mullen: I might persuade both Senators.

Senator Ivana Bacik: To include “suspicion” as well as “opinion” would make it clear that the whistleblower does not have to be absolutely certain before making a disclosure but neither can he or she make misleading or frivolous allegations. I say to the Minister, with respect, that to include “or suspicion” would create a better and more encouraging perception for whistleblowers and potential whistleblowers.

Senator David Norris: I have been persuaded by Senator Regan’s argument, supported by Senator Bacik, and now give my unqualified support to the amendment. A very important series of related points has been raised. First, there has been a shift in the balance of responsibility. Second, some of the persons involved may be young people or people who are not entirely formed as to maturity and who may be easily intimidated. Cases of sexual abuse were mentioned which is a very sensitive area. I am now completely persuaded by this argument.

That is the great value of the kind of debate we have in this House. It is possible, honourably, to alter the balance of one’s opinion. I am sure the Minister is capable of doing that too. I suggest to my colleagues who tabled this amendment that it is very important. I congratulate Senator Bacik on tabling it but I suggest she might consider withdrawing it to allow the Minister to consider the matter in greater depth with his advisers and the Senator resubmit it on Report Stage in the hope that the Minister will be persuaded and will refer the debate in this Chamber to the advisers in order that they may study it. We are all united in our wish to promote and sustain the welfare of vulnerable people who make these allegations in good faith.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: I can look at this again between now and Report Stage but I reiterate we considered this issue. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we do not flip-flop and we listen to arguments.

Senator Rónán Mullen: That is making a swansong.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: We do not flip-flop within a short timescale.

Senator Eugene Regan: It is just a nuance of the argument of Senator Norris.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: On the basis that——

Senator David Norris: If the Minister is giving a guarantee he will look at this matter, he must look at it with an open mind. It is not a flip-flop.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Minister, without interruptions.

Senator David Norris: It is a development.

Senator Rónán Mullen: If the Minister could at least form a suspicion, as distinct from an opinion, he might——

Deputy Dermot Ahern: Perhaps, upon mature reflection.

Senator Eugene Regan: It is a sign of intelligence to be able to change one’s mind.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Minister, without interruptions.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: Our premise is that “opinion” includes suspicion, actual knowledge or a belief. I would not suggest what is being suggested, namely, that in some way the use of the word “opinion” suggests the person in question must be absolutely certain about the issue he or she is reporting. I do not accept that at all. It is up to the authorities——

Senator David Norris: It is a grey area.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: No, there is a suggestion that in some way——

Senator Eugene Regan: No one suggested that.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: ——there is a greater onus on the person because of the use of the word “opinion” rather than “suspicion”. That leaves aside the fact that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, the word “opinion” includes “suspicion”. I will look at this again and consider whether it is possible to define “opinion”. I do not believe one can but we will ask the Office of the Attorney General. I do not believe that adding the word “suspicion” will advance or broaden this in any way. If one were to include the word “suspicion”, one would probably have to look to other similar words to see whether they, too, should be included. Where would one end up? The use of the word “opinion” is recognised in courts by the Judiciary and it is fully understood what it is intended to mean in particular instances. I do not see how this argument can advance. It may very well even suggest there is a differentiation between opinion and suspicion whereas, as far as we are concerned, there is not.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is amendment No. 1 being pressed?

Senator Ivana Bacik: I would not press it if I thought the Minister would take the debate seriously and would consider the issue between now and Report Stage. He said he——

Deputy Dermot Ahern: I take the debate seriously.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I accept the Minister said that but I note from the Order Paper that Report Stage is to take place immediately after Committee Stage.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: I did not know that.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I do not suggest the Minister knew that. I am informing the House of it. I do not believe Senator Norris was aware of this either.

Senator David Norris: The way the business of this House is ordered is absolutely disgraceful. This is another example of the idiocies perpetrated by the Leader.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: I did not know that.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I do not suggest the Minister knew it.

Senator David Norris: It is an absolute shame.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I would be happy to withdraw the amendment if I thought there would be a gap between Committee and Report Stages in order that the Minister might be in a position to consider it. There has been a full debate on the amendment. The matter was put in the other House but the debate there was not so full.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 21, after “opinion” to insert “or suspicion”.

— (Senator Ivana Bacik).

Senator Ivana Bacik: Given the circumstances, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are related and may be taken together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, line 23, to delete “has been or is being” and substitute “may have been or may be being”.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 relate to a similar concern in respect of the whistleblower protection in section 4. Again, we felt the onus is being placed, under the Minister’s wording, on the whistleblower to be clear that he or she had formed an opinion that an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act has been or is being committed. Using the Minister’s wording, the onus is placed on the whistleblower to form an opinion that an offence has been or is being committed. In our view, that is too heavy an onus on a potential whistleblower. It seems as if it requires the whistleblower to know what sort of offences are envisaged under the Prevention of Corruption Act before he or she would report any opinion to anyone in authority about his or her view.

Our amendment would give greater protection to whistleblowers and create a more encouraging climate for potential whistleblowers. Instead of stating the whistleblower must have formed the opinion that an offence has been or is being committed, it would be somewhat more nuanced and would state that an offence “may have been or may be being” committed.

We cannot presume that every potential whistleblower, including, as Senators Norris and Regan said, very young people who may be very vulnerable and easily intimidated, would know the law on corruption offences — in fact, we cannot presume anyone knows what the Prevention of Corruption Act states in terms of offences. Therefore, it would be a more appropriate approach to state they must have formed an opinion or suspicion in good faith that an offence “may have been or may be being” committed. This does not change the substance of the section but it creates a little more space for a whistleblower to form an opinion in good faith and to be clear he or she will be protected if he or she reports or discloses that suspicion to somebody in authority.

Amendment No. 4 refers to subsection (3), where “a person has committed or is committing an offence”. The amendment seeks to introduce the term “may have committed or may be” committing an offence. To put it in plain language, if a potential whistleblower thinks somebody may be committing an offence of corruption, the person can report that in good faith. It does not require that the person believes an offence of corruption has been or is being committed. It is a nuanced amendment, which we believe creates a more welcoming and encouraging climate for potential whistleblowers, whom we want to encourage to make disclosure in good faith of suspicions and opinions about corruption.

Senator David Norris: I support the amendment, which strengthens the protection of whistleblowers. As Senator Bacik said, it is a nuanced view. One could say that having an opinion that “it” has been committed does not require “it” to have been committed. At the same time, this will offer reassurance to people who have a suspicion or an opinion that something may have gone wrong, where the person is not in a position to state objective facts with clarity but believes something sinister is or may be occurring.

As we have got to a situation where there will be time for reflection, I urge the Minister to take the amendment back for reconsideration rather than rejecting it. It is all of a piece with the earlier amendment, as Senator Bacik argued very effectively. This would be a practical way of dealing with this important matter, if it is reserved for further discussion.

Senator Eugene Regan: I agree with these amendments, which are on the same lines as the previous amendments we have discussed. The manner in which the section is framed is too onerous on the whistleblower and the amendments are well grounded.

Senator Rónán Mullen: This amendment is closely related to the previous amendment proposed. It might be of use to think of this in terms of a situation where a person has second-hand rather than first-hand knowledge. Are we discussing the facilitation of potential whistleblowers who do not have a direct handle on the evidence of wrong-doing but who are, say, approached by a person they trust within an organisation who tells them something has happened, and who then feel an obligation to report what they heard? Such evidence might be regarded as hearsay in the view of the courts but would and should, in the whistleblower’s view, facilitate an investigation into what the person has heard. Is that useful in terms of considering the distinction between what is contained in the legislation and what Senator Bacik has proposed?

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): I am minded to accept the amendments, although some of the documents before me would suggest they are not necessary. As I said, opinion encompasses belief and suspicion; it does not connote certainty. Therefore, there is no need to change “may” to “may have been or may be being”. The whistleblower is not required to prove that corruption has been or is being committed. He or she is not required to be certain. He or she is clearly protected when communicating an opinion, which includes suspicion, that corruption has been or is being committed. The only requirement is that the whistleblower avoids knowingly or recklessly being false, misleading, frivolous or vexatious. It is really a balance between, on the one hand, encouraging whistleblowers and, on the other hand, protecting people against whom an allegation has been made.

I am inclined to accept the amendments today. There is a time constraint because we want to get the Bill passed and, if I accept the amendments, we have to go back to the Dáil. We want the Bill passed by 14 December because there is an OECD deadline. I will accept the amendments, and on Report Stage we will have to find time to go back to the Dáil. They do make sense.

Senator David Norris: Bravo. Well done to the Minister. That is brilliant.

Senator Ivana Bacik: Senator Norris has put it very well. I am very grateful to the Minister for being so open to accepting the amendments and for indicating he will do so. They will strengthen and improve the quality of section 4 of the Bill and will encourage a greater culture of disclosure in good faith by whistleblowers. That is an important change of mind and I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the amendments, which will send a very welcome signal to potential whistleblowers that they will be given adequate and appropriate protection where they disclose in good faith their belief or opinion that an offence may have been or may be being committed. I thank the Minister.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: As I have accepted the amendments, for logistical reasons we would have to have Report Stage today.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I am happy with that.

Senator Eugene Regan: Are we talking about these amendments and Senator Bacik’s previous amendments?

Deputy Dermot Ahern: We will have to deal with them all today due to logistical reasons in regard to bringing the Bill back into the Dáil.

Senator David Norris: As the person who fought that battle on the issue, if Senator Bacik, whose amendment this is, is satisfied, I will certainly accept it, as I am sure she will.

Acting Chairman (Senator Maurice Cummins): The House will decide that at the end of Committee Stage. We cannot decide on it now. That is the procedure.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Senator Maurice Cummins): Amendments Nos. 3 and 6 are related and will be discussed together.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, lines 26 to 29, to delete all words from and including “misleading,” in line 26 down to and including “vexatious,” in line 29.

In many ways, what we have been discussing recently and what I am proposing concern different paths up the mountain. We want to achieve a culture of transparency in which people will not feel there will be a chilling effect in reporting their belief there has been corruption. The same motivation underlies Senator Bacik’s amendments and mine.

We must recall the critical role played by whistleblowers in fighting corruption. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that some 40% of all cases of corruption and fraud are exposed by whistleblowers. Individuals such as Eugene McErlean at AIB and Sherron Watkins at Enron have in the course of their work reported concerns or evidence of wrongdoing or harm to others. It is important to remember they are motivated to do the right thing in the common good. That is what we are talking about in this debate. It is to fulfil international obligations that the Government has brought forward this legislation. It is important to remember that the role of whistleblowers has been recognised by the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the OECD. It is because these organisations place whistleblowing at the heart of a national strategy to prevent the abuse of power that we have this Bill. We need to be very careful, therefore, about what we include in and leave out of it.

I have not addressed the sectoral approach taken by the Government to whistleblowing, as addressed by other Senators. The approach is folly. We will be left with very diverse and confusing standards of protection for whistleblowers and significant gaps in legislation. Irrespective of whether one is talking about child abuse, corruption, fraud or mismanagement, it should be possible to identify certain principles that apply to all of these areas. It should be possible to identify whether allegations are made in good faith and establish a mechanism for people to report to an authority beyond their employer because of fear or possible intimidation by that employer or employees. One can pretend that the drafting of general legislation would cause problems, but I do not believe it would. The same principles generally apply to whistleblowing across the board. I refer to what whistleblowers need in order to do what they must do and the wider need of society to prevent the making of many vexatious, irresponsible, worrisome or unfounded claims. I am concerned the Bill will not protect individuals such as Eugene McErlean or a single whistleblower in our banks reporting fraud, overcharging or reckless dealing. It is remarkable, given what we have discussed incessantly in the past few months, that these issues remained unaddressed in this legislation. That is very noticeable and odd, to say the least.

The Bill will not hold unscrupulous employers to account for covering up wrongdoing of many shades other than what is prescribed in it. When one considers the penalty imposed on individuals such as Mr. Noel Wardick, a former director at the Irish Red Cross who drew attention to serious issues of mismanagement and a failure to discharge funds properly, one realises it is remarkable that we are not taking the opportunity this legislation presents to establish more general principles pertaining to whistleblowing. It is vital that we do so, bearing in mind that the Irish Red Cross almost has a statutory function and significant national responsibilities at certain times and in certain ways. It is a classic example of a case in which somebody feels the need to report beyond his or her employer and the Garda in order that the best interest of his or her organisation and the public would be served.

The amendments propose to delete the words “misleading”, “frivolous” and “vexatious” such that the section would provide that a person would not be liable for damages, save where, in communicating his or her opinion to the appropriate authority, he or she knows his or her opinion to be false. Let me reassure the Minister and others in case there is any doubt. It is not that I have any sympathy for someone who knows what he or she is saying is in any way misleading, frivolous or vexatious. One must consider the two amendments together. We are not just talking about the person escaping liability in the courts but also about the circumstances in which a person might escape penalisation by his or her employer. I am worried that the legislation, as drafted, will lead to a chilling effect on potential whistleblowers. They may consider it may be said what they are doing is misleading or vexatious. I am uncomfortable with the subjectivity associated with these concepts. The test should be one of falsity. Transparency International has advised that it is highly unusual and worrying for a provision such as this to be inserted in such legislation. It believes the Bill, as presented, will silence potential whistleblowers.

The Bill provides that damages may be sought against an employee if what he or she reports is deemed to be reckless in the sense of being false, misleading, frivolous or vexatious. This type of provision is not included in any other whistleblower legislation, in Ireland or overseas. One must ask why anyone would come forward if he or she believed he or she could be penalised by his or her employer. That is the point that causes me particular concern. I refer to the raising of a concern that one’s employer deems to be reckless, vexatious, frivolous or misleading. Even where an employee makes a genuine mistake in reporting, would it not be easy to brand the report as frivolous or reckless? Such mistakes are possible and may even be inevitable, but a whistleblower should not be punished according to such a subjective and unfair standard.

1 o’clock

What constitutes reckless behaviour? Would a person mistakenly reporting a concern of corruption to a non-designated body such as the Standards in Public Office Commission or the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General be deemed to be reckless? The standard runs contrary to the common law principle of good faith, which implies a person believes the substance of the report to be true and does not act maliciously. Would that not be a better standard to apply? The good faith principle is at the heart of the United Kingdom’s whistleblower legislation and has been tested in British courts for the past decade. The new test of recklessness and frivolity will serve only to dissuade those who have genuine concerns from reporting for fear of being branded as reckless. That is my concern. It is not that I want to provide comfort for those who in any way know or believe what they are saying is frivolous, vexatious or misleading.

One must be careful about the overall context and import of this legislation. My fear is that it could have a chilling effect on those who genuinely have a matter to report. Why not simply require that what they report must not be false? If one considers the imposition of criminal liability, one will note it just applies to circumstances in which one knows one’s statement is false. If that is the threshold at which the law intervenes, should it not be the threshold applied across the board when offering protection from civil litigation and penalisation by an employer?

Senator David Norris: I listened with interest to what Senator Mullen had to say. I believed initially these amendments were absurd, dangerous and self-contradictory and the Senator has not persuaded me that they are not.

He has completely undermined his own case, particularly in the context of the words he used. Earlier I urged the Minister to reflect on this matter and was successful in getting him do so. I urge the Senator to reflect on it also.

There might be a tiny margin for arguing about whether something is reckless. However, it is not possible to state anyone who makes an allegation and knows it to be vexatious, misleading or frivolous should be protected. I have always stood up for principles and whistleblowers. I have even blown the odd whistle myself. However, it would be outrageous to protect someone who knows that the allegations he or she is making are vexatious and who makes them merely to upset the person who is the subject of them. That is arrant nonsense and I am 100% opposed to it.

It is wrong to invoke the names of Mr. Eugene McErlean who worked for AIB and Mr. Noel Wardick, a former director of the Irish Red Cross. I have raised issues on behalf of these individuals and it is seriously damaging to their reputations to suggest they require such protection. The allegations made by the two gentlemen to whom I refer made were certainly not misleading, frivolous or vexatious.

Senator Rónán Mullen: That is not the point I was making.

Senator David Norris: If the legislation has a chilling effect in preventing people from knowingly making vexatious, misleading or frivolous allegations, so much the better. That is what legislation should do.

There is a minor argument which can be made in respect of the second amendment, but I urge Senator Mullen to withdraw both of them.

Senator Rónán Mullen: Transparency International has pointed out——

Senator David Norris: I do not care about that matter. Mentioning the name of an organisation does not mean anything. The Senator has not sustained his argument.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I took the trouble to——-

Acting Chairman (Senator Maurice Cummins): There should be no interaction between Members.

Senator David Norris: I would be extremely surprised if Transparency International wanted to incite people and protect those who knowingly make misleading, frivolous or vexatious allegations.

Senator Rónán Mullen: The Senator is intent on disagreeing with the amendments and did not listen to what I said.

Acting Chairman (Senator Maurice Cummins): The two Members should address their remarks through the Chair. There should be no interaction between them. Let us deal with our business in a proper way. Has Senator Norris concluded?

Senator David Norris: Yes, I believe I have made the point. The language is clear. Protection is not afforded to people who make allegations which they know to be misleading, vexatious or frivolous for corrupt reasons. The import of Senator Mullen’s amendments would be to open a blackmailer’s charter. If Transparency International stands over the amendments tabled by the Senator, it has made a mistake. I am certain the Senator has tabled the amendments in good faith. However, I do not understand the logic behind them and he certainly has not persuaded me by his arguments.

Senator Rónán Mullen: Transparency International wants another test to be applied.

Acting Chairman (Senator Maurice Cummins): The Senator will have the right to reply when everyone else has contributed.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I appreciate what Senator Mullen is seeking to do with these amendments which is similar to what I was trying to do, namely, ensure adequate protection for whistleblowers who disclose in good faith. However, I am not sure that removing the relevant words and making the test one of knowing something to be false and excluding the test for recklessness would be the best way to proceed. The amendment the Minister accepted will enhance the protection for whistleblowers to a sufficient degree and ensure a balance is struck. While I appreciate the aim of the amendments, the balance to which I refer must be established. It is important a message is sent to potential whistleblowers that they will encouraged to disclose information in good faith. We must also ensure we do not——

Senator David Norris: Would the Senator afford protection to persons who knowingly make vexatious allegations?

Senator Ivana Bacik: No.

Senator David Norris: That is my point.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I agree that there is a difficulty in respect of recklessness. In our criminal code it is clear a different form of mens rea applies. On the other hand, we are referring to civil liability, particularly in the context of section 4(1)(a). A balance has been struck.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I wish to clarify two points. In the context of what Senator Bacik stated, I am not proposing that we remove the test relating to recklessness. I am, however, proposing that the test relating to knowledge and recklessness be confined to the issue of falsity.

Senator Norris’s contribution was both entertaining and dramatic. However, he fails to comprehend the import of what I am saying about removing the words “misleading”, “frivolous” and “vexatious”. I am not suggesting we should protect those who knowingly make misleading, frivolous or vexatious claims or reports. I am concerned instead with establishing a context in which people will not feel unduly burdened, particularly in the context of their potentially being penalised by their employers, when it comes to making such claims or reports. An employer could, for example, decide, on a subjective basis, that what a whistleblower did was misleading. I suggest we adhere to the principle established under the criminal law, namely, that a person who does something which he or she knows to be false will get into trouble. That would pretty much cover matters. By including the words to which I refer, it adds in some way to the chilling effect.

The psychological context in which whistleblowing occurs provides the key to understanding what I am saying. With respect, I believe Senator Norris did not pay adequate attention to my arguments in this regard. I am proposing that we replace what is contained in the Bill with something along the lines of the British model. In such circumstances, the legislation would refer to making claims in good faith and not being malicious. The Senator did not appear to comprehend that aspect of my argument either. I am not seeking to establish a blackmailer’s charter or give comfort to those who make misleading, frivolous or vexatious claims. I thought that should have been very clear to the Senator. However, I believe he chose heat over light — or perhaps drama over substance — in the context of the approach he chose to take to my amendments.

I reiterate that the test of falsity should be maintained. If a person knows that what he or she is saying is false or if he or she is reckless as to whether something is false, that should be sufficient to prevent irresponsible or dishonest whistleblowing. We should opt for a test of good faith and presume an absence of malice.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: While I accept that Senator Mullen tabled thee amendments in good faith, the net effect of what he is suggesting — which he readily admitted — would be that the test would be restricted to one of falsity. In deleting the words to which the amendments refer, he would, in effect, be providing protection for persons who knowingly or recklessly make communications or offer opinions that are misleading, frivolous or vexatious. I could not accept this.

When the Bill was originally published, the test of whether a whistleblower would receive protection was simply based on whether he or she had acted reasonably and in good faith in forming an opinion and communicating it to the appropriate person. I proposed an amendment which was accepted on Committee Stage in the Dáil in respect of this test. As a result, the Bill now provides that a whistleblower will be protected unless, when communicating an opinion, he or she does so knowing or being reckless as to whether that opinion is false, misleading or frivolous or if he or she furnishes information in this regard that he or she knows to be false or misleading.

I also tabled an amendment on Report Stage in the Dáil in respect of allegations of whistleblowing which are false. As a result, the test as to whether a person is guilty of an offence rests on whether he or she actually knew an allegation was false as opposed to whether he or she ought to have known it was untrue. I am satisfied, therefore, that the section, as it now stands, strikes the correct balance.

Senator Mullen referred to the treatment, from a civil point of view, of employees. I refer him to section 6 which inserts an new Schedule 1 in the principal Act and which states:

In proceedings under this Schedule before a rights commissioner or the Labour Court in relation to a complaint that section 8A(5) has been contravened, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the employee concerned acted reasonably and in good faith in forming the opinion and making the communication concerned.

Again, protection is provided for employees who must obviously make complaints in good faith. While Senator Norris may have been overly colourful in what he said, I agree with his opinion on this matter. Deleting the words in question would have an adverse effect in that it would provide protection for someone who knowingly or recklessly makes vexatious, frivolous or misleading allegations.

Order of Business - 1st December 2010

2010-12-17T14:55:00.000Z

Order of Business - 1st December 2010
Order of Business – 1st December 2010
Senator David Norris: I note that exception was taken to the use of the word “asylum”. An asylum is a place of refuge and we should remind ourselves that we are in such a place. We are very privileged to be Members of this House and we are insulated, especially from the weather which obtains outside at present. We should consider those who do not have our privileges and who are weak and vulnerable. I refer to the elderly, the homeless and the poor. It is imperative we think about the plight of these people.
I am concerned about the views expressed by some members of Fine Gael to the effect that the party intends to liquidate our utilities — beginning with Bord Gáis Éireann — when in government. We have given away the Corrib gas field. I would be interested in hearing Fine Gael’s arguments in respect of this matter.
The matter of the Leader interfering with the processes of the House was raised. Did he play any role in respect of the extraordinary decision taken yesterday in the context of Standing Order 30? Will the Leader indicate if Government influence brought to bear? The decision to which I refer was very strange. What happened yesterday was similar to what occurred when I tried to raise a matter under the Standing Order 30 some years ago. At that time, I was informed that the matter in question was not one of national importance. While I was raising it, however, the then Taoiseach, the late Mr. Charles Haughey, was on his feet in the Lower House declaring a national emergency.
I wish to comment on the agreement that has been reached between financial institutions of various kinds and the Government. This is a serious matter and I appeal to the Leader to ensure the details of this arrangement are laid before the House and that Members will be given an opportunity vote on them. I am of the view that a constitutional matter is involved and last night I took legal opinion in respect of it. I am informed that the Government cannot alienate its power to decide issues. I have also been informed that:
The Government seems to be saying that it is covered by some EU Regulation and is necessitated by the obligations of our membership. However, even if it is necessitated by the obligations of membership of the EU, it couldn’t be necessitated by the obligation to sign up to a bailout so that doesn’t protect the government at all.
It would be a very serious matter in respect of which a person would take a constitutional action. I am considering doing so but I must weigh in the balance the fact that this might be misconstrued as an attempt to protect my own ultimate political ambitions.
I make an appeal to Deputy Rabbitte, who stated in the Lower House and in various newspaper articles——
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator’s time is exhausted.
Senator David Norris: ——that in his view there is an argument to be advanced in respect of this matter under Article 29 of the Constitution. The Deputy may be the appropriate person to take the constitutional action to which I refer——
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should respect the Chair by concluding his comments.
Senator David Norris: ——and I hope he does so.
An Cathaoirleach: Decisions relating to Standing Order 30 are made by the Chair, not the Leader. I made the decision in respect of the matter raised yesterday.
Senator David Norris: Is the Cathaoirleach quite sure that is the case?

Private Members Motion on the National Recovery Plan 2011-2014 - 30th November 2010

2010-12-17T14:53:00.000Z

Private Members Motion on the National Recovery Plan 2011-2014 - 30 November 2010
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher, to the House, with which he is very familiar. I do not propose to score partisan political points, but that does not mean I will not have some criticisms to make. If the Minister of State’s speech was his last in the House, he should note it was a fine one, although I did not agree with some of it. It was very clear that he spoke from the heart, particularly when he invoked the future of his family. Few of us in the House could remain unmoved by the genuine sentiments he expressed. However, I support the motion. I had not anticipated speaking at this point, but I am happy to do so.

The first point of the motion states Seanad Éireann “notes that the Government’s four year plan published on 24 November 2010 contains nothing by way of concrete measures to restore employment”. It does not contain very much and I am not saying this in a partisan way. The plan certainly does not appear to contain enough. I do not make this charge for the purpose of gaining political advantage in that this comment has been made by a number of financial experts. For that reason, it is worrying. It is a central point in the remarks made by Dr. Krugman who certainly does not share the Minister’s view on bondholders. He holds what appears to be a majority view which is shared by the directors of some of the largest bond-holding companies. All economists admit that what has happened here is unjust, immoral and indefensible on ethical grounds. I asked on the Order of Business whether it was possible to sustain an appropriate financial system, or a just and decent civil society, on grounds that were universally acknowledged as being immoral, unjust, unethical and, according to Dr. Krugman, a mistake. I agree with that point.

It is true the Government is feeling overwhelmed. Who would not? I certainly would feel under considerable pressure. I have a degree of sympathy with the Government members as human beings. All of us have seen repeated on a number of occasions in the past few days the extraordinary scanning shot of the Government Front Bench in the Dáil. Body language is very instructive. There is no doubt the Members shown were beaten people. One only had to look at the expressions on their faces to realise they were really concerned.

My Labour Party colleagues have called on the Government to establish a strategic investment bank to fund viable businesses. This is absolutely desirable and who could possibly disagree? However, from where will they get the money? I do not know. We have actually frittered away our resources. Therefore, this good idea is not sustainable. Like the Minister of State who was engaging in his frankness, I am not an economist.

I welcome some of the points made by the Minister of State. I did not have time to read his speec, but I was listening to it in my office. I am glad the issue of upward-only rent reviews has been addressed and is continually under review. I refer, in particular, to the working group on commercial rents. This is a vital issue. However, why is it taking so long to address it? I have been talking about it for years in this House. I highlighted what I had seen in our most fashionable streets. I walk up O’Connell Street and Grafton Street and through the Hibernian Way and could see what was happening. It was blindingly bloody obvious. It was insanity to have upward-only rent reviews. It was also insanity to increase our VAT rates when the British did not. We share a land border with a part of the disunited kingdom which was lowering its rate when we were increasing ours. There was a certain amount of daftness in that regard. Let me welcome the provision to address this issue.

I welcome the scrutiny of legal costs, in respect of which there is a scandal. The most glaring example concerns the tribunals. Some members are commanding salaries of €2,500 per day, day after day. Let us have itemised accounts from lawyers. The Minister of State should get his colleagues to consider this. One simply never receives itemised accounts. One receives a bundled-up bill referring to stationery, postage, research, secretarial work and so forth. It is a load of nonsense and only one bald figure is listed. Since we are down to our last brass farthing, let the unfortunate people who have to pay legal bills know how much is spent on stamps, correspondence and secretarial time. I am not making any charges against individual legal practitioners because the practice to which I refer is followed throughout the profession. One never receives an itemised bill. I have never received one, although I am a very litigious man. I have never in my entire life received an itemised bill from any legal source. Let us address this issue.

The interest rate of 5.8% does not represent generosity. We have been good citizens of the European Union throughout our membership. We have taken very hard medicine and are being rewarded with punitive rates. The interest rate is an average figure; the actual figure for part of the loan will be considerably higher. No good deed goes unpunished. Let the people in Europe read this and realise there is at least one person here who recognises the lack of collegiality.

I was listening to a German Green Party member doing his damnedest to say Ireland should immediately scrap its corporation tax rate of 12.5%. How neighbourly is that? The journalist Polly Toynbee is not a Member of Parliament, but the language employed by her in her article in The Guardian, a very good newspaper, was a disgrace.

Senator John Paul Phelan: Hear, hear.

Senator David Norris: It was a racist caricature and she should be ashamed of herself for describing us as beggars, cheats, liars and thieves. Is that the language used by a good neighbour? In spite of its not being so, Ms Toynbee’s view is widely held underneath the soft parlance of the British Conservative Party.

With regard to Mr. Chopra, in one jump we seem to have gone from snip to chop. His emollient tones did not fool me one bit, including comments to the effect that we were brave little soldiers and that the Irish had character. Why the hell should we accept the interest rate offered? We should be given the money by those concerned at a rate of 1% because we are saving their bacon.

I hope to God someone from the ECB reads this debate. The ECB flooded the market with cheap money. It did not care where that money went and, of course, it went into our half-baked banks. The ECB was then among those who carried out stress tests on those banks and it informed everyone that they were perfectly all right. Who is the ECB fooling? Why should taxpayers who had no part in what happened be penalised and placed in penury?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator has one minute remaining.

Senator David Norris: That is just too bad. I wish I had more time. There are certain areas on which we can focus. I have just been listening to a news report on RTE regarding the Kerry Group, which is a splendid organisation. The Kerry Group began as a little co-op and it now provides 23,000 jobs worldwide. It is to businesses of this sort that we should provide encouragement.

The Minister of State said “It is clear the best way to support businesses and create jobs is to fix the banks”. He should return on Thursday when we will be debating the EU-IMF programme for Ireland and we can then discuss how to fix the banks. I know how I would fix them and I am aware of how the citizens of this country would like to see them fixed.

The Minister of State also referred to our export performance, which is fine. He also indicated that “the Government secured a commitment from the main lenders, AIB and Bank of Ireland, to make available not less than €12 billion in total for new or increased credit facilities to SMEs”. Is this happening now? Is it possible to believe a word those in these two banks say? Will the position in this regard be monitored? Let us consider the figures provided by Mr. John Trethowan in respect of current practice in the banks. These figures indicate that at least 25% of the applications from small and medium enterprises were improperly rejected. That is the only conclusion one can reach in respect of this matter.

The Minister of State referred to prompt payment by the Government within 15 days of receipt of invoices. It is about bloody time.

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

Senator David Norris: I am doing so. What is being done with the National Pensions Reserve Fund is disastrous. There is a train crash coming down the line in respect of pensions and the EU and the IMF are being allowed to dip their nasty little fingers into this fund.

I had hoped to speak after my colleagues, Senators O’Toole and Mullen. I do not have permission to move their amendment to the motion but I am very interested in it. I would like a proper examination to be carried out in respect of the proposal for metro north. I hope this project proceeds and I was very much involved in progressing it in the early stages. The project must provide good value, however, and must give rise to the creation of the envisaged number of jobs.

The second part of the amendment in the names of Senators O’Toole and Mullen refers to the moral hazard created by narrowing the gap between welfare and wages giving rise to a need for an immediate reversal of the decision to reduce the minimum wage. I was not able to give my support to the amendment as a result of the inclusion of this stipulation. I want to protect people on the minimum wage. I have been lobbied by restaurant owners, however, who are going out of their minds in respect of this matter. If we could take account of the needs of the restaurant sector while protecting the minimum wage to the largest degree possible, progress could be made. An absolute disaster has been visited upon restaurant owners as a result of the kind of wages they are required to pay to, for example, those who work on Sundays.

Let us consider this matter sector by sector.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator must conclude.

Senator David Norris: Is it not appalling that multibillionaires are buying petrol for their yachts in Monte Carlo at the expense of the weakest in society? This is being done by reducing the hourly rate of the minimum wage by €1 and it is an utter moral scandal. We in this House should stand for decency and principles and for those who are at the lowest point on the scale. From what he said at the end of his very moving contribution, I know that, in his heart, the Minister of State shares that view. I do not care if people read what I have said but I hope to God they do.

Senator Dan Boyle: I think the Senator just provided us with a preview of Thursday’s speech.

Senator David Norris: Senator Boyle has not heard the half of it yet.

Senator Dan Boyle: I look forward to hearing the remainder.

Senator David Norris: The Senator might agree with much of it.

Request to move Adjournment of Seanad under Standing Order 30 - 30th November 2010

2010-12-17T14:49:00.002Z

Request to move Adjournment of Seanad under Standing Order 30
- 30th November 2010
Senator David Norris: I seek the adjournment of the Seanad under Standing Order 30 to discuss a matter of public importance: the need for Seanad Éireann to discuss the terms of the IMF bailout, the involvement of the Oireachtas in its approval and democratic accountability to the people. A deal has been done over the heads of the people by a discredited Government, which has lost the support of the electorate, with unelected and unaccountable financial interests. I urge the Cathaoirleach to take into account the views of Dr. Krugman, the Nobel prize winning economist, who said: “These debts were incurred, not to pay for public programmes, but by private wheeler-dealers seeking nothing but their own profit.”

An Cathaoirleach: Senator, please.

Senator David Norris: “Yet, ordinary Irish citizens are now bearing the burden of these debts——

An Cathaoirleach: Senator, please.

Senator David Norris: ——or, to be more accurate, they are bearing a burden much larger than the debt because the spending cuts have caused a severe recession.”

An Cathaoirleach: I will adjourn the House if the Senator does not resume his seat.

Senator David Norris: “So, in addition——

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator submitted the detail of the matter he wished to raise and has now——

Senator David Norris: ——to taking on the banks’ debts, the Irish are suffering from plunging incomes and high unemployment.”

An Cathaoirleach: I will adjourn the House if the Senator does not resume his seat. I ask him to respect the Chair. What was submitted to me should have been stated, not the rant in which the Senator engaged.

Senator David Norris: I do not think it was a rant.

An Cathaoirleach: I have given careful consideration to the matter raised by the Senator and do not consider it to be one contemplated by Standing Order 30. I regret, therefore, that I have to rule it out of order. Furthermore, there is an amendment to the Order of Business seeking a debate on the matter today.

Senator David Norris: It clearly demonstrates this House is a total farce. If it is not a matter of national importance, what on Earth is?

An Cathaoirleach: Will the Senator, please, resume his seat?

Senator David Norris: It is outrageous.

An Cathaoirleach: That is the Senator’s opinion.

Senator David Norris: I seek an explanation of why you do not think it is not a matter of national urgency. I appeal to you to rethink or advise the House——

An Cathaoirleach: There is an amendment to the Order of Business.

Senator David Norris: ——why it is not a matter of national urgency.

An Cathaoirleach: I ask the Senator to, please, resume his seat.

A Senator: Senator Norris is only seeking publicity.

Senator David Norris: We are in a really delicate situation.

An Cathaoirleach: Does the Senator want me to adjourn the House because of him?

Senator David Norris: I think the Cathaoirleach should adjourn House in order that he can reconsider his position because this is completely outrageous.

An Cathaoirleach: I call Senator Mullen on the Order of Business.

Senator David Norris: No wonder Senator O’Toole feels he has to withdraw——

An Cathaoirleach: That has nothing to do with this.

Senator David Norris: It is a complete and utter disgrace. It makes a farce of the Oireachtas.

Order of Business - 30th November 2010

2010-12-17T14:48:00.002Z

Order of Business - 30th November 2010
Order of Business – 30th November 2010
Senator David Norris: I second the amendment moved by Senator Fitzgerald. Will the terms of the memorandum of agreement be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas in order that the representatives of the people can vote upon them? If not, in what sense can this Parliament be described as a democracy? Are we in the Oireachtas the servants of the people or merely the lackeys of our own morally and financially bankrupt banks and international financial interests?
Is the Leader aware that every single economist and financial commentator, irrespective of whether he is in favour of burning the bondholders, acknowledges now that the process of not burning them is immoral and penalises the Irish people for the mistakes, stupidity and greed of the banks? Is it not the case that this process is immoral, unjust, unethical and unfair? Acknowledging these facts, will the Leader state whether, in these circumstances, a proper financial system or a proper and just civil society can be sustained on a foundation of immorality, unfairness and injustice? Is the Leader aware that the Nobel prize winning economist, Paul Krugman, said, “And you have to wonder what it will take for serious people to realize that punishing the populace for the bankers’ sins is worse than a crime; it’s a mistake.” In light of the fact that the director of the largest single bond investment group, Mr. El-Erian, whose name I put on the record of the House last week, has indicated that the bondholders should be burnt, will the Leader comment on this matter? Will he ensure the House will at least have an opportunity to vote on it?

Statements on Renewable Energy - 25th November 2010

2010-12-17T14:47:00.002Z

Statements on Renewable Energy - 25th November 2010
Senator David Norris: Senator Quinn has given me my lead in with his reference to the four year plan. I propose to speak about a particular form of energy about which I have spoken in this House previously. Members may recall that I defined “money” as “the symbolic representation of energy”. This may or may not be a renewable source in this country but it certainly will not be unless we take a very specific form of action. I am speaking about bondholders. This is renewable energy; this is money, and this is where it is at. I have managed to get a list of the bondholders and propose to place it on the record of the House. It is perfectly in order for me to do so. I have so defined it and will not be stopped.

An Cathaoirleach: We are dealing with renewable energy.

Senator David Norris: I know exactly what we are dealing with and I am speaking to it.

An Cathaoirleach: We are not getting involved in name——

Senator David Norris: I am talking about renewable energy and have made it perfectly clear, logically and intellectually, how I am doing it.

An Cathaoirleach: I want no names of people the Senator says are bondholders——

Senator David Norris: I am giving the institutions. I am perfectly entitled to name them. We have mentioned repeatedly Bank of Ireland and so on. It is frustrating the democratic wish of this House if the people concerned are not named.

An Cathaoirleach: We are not dealing with banking; we are dealing with renewable energy.

Senator David Norris: I am dealing with it because I have given a definition of “money” as including renewable energy.

An Cathaoirleach: The business ordered is renewable energy.

Senator David Norris: The business was ordered and I am speaking to it. The names are Aberdeen Asset Management (London) Ltd, AGICAM, Aktia Asset Management, Aletti Gestielle SGR, AllianceBernstein (UK) Limited, Allianz Global Investors France, AmpegaGerling Investment, Anima SGR——

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is totally out of order. I ask him not to get involved in that aspect. We are taking statements on renewable energy potential.

Senator David Norris: I am speaking very directly and clearly about renewable energy.

An Cathaoirleach: No——

Senator David Norris: I most certainly am.

An Cathaoirleach: That is not relevant.

Senator David Norris: It is very relevant.

An Cathaoirleach: No, it is not.

Senator David Norris: It is the most relevant issue in this country.

An Cathaoirleach: It may be to a different debate.

Senator David Norris: I will outline how relevant it is. Mr. Mohammed El-Erian, director of Pimco, which has $1.35 trillion in assets on its books and advises bondholders, said if——

An Cathaoirleach: We are sticking to the debate. There may be another forum to discuss that matter.

Senator David Norris: I do not accept the Chair’s ruling because I have indicated that I am talking about renewable energy. I have given a definition of “money” as including renewable energy. I have defined my terms clearly. The Chair is trying to frustrate me. He is trying to protect the Government and I think that is wrong.

An Cathaoirleach: I am not trying to frustrate the Senator and will not allow him to continue in this vein.

Senator David Norris: For what reason?

An Cathaoirleach: It is not relevant to the debate. The business was ordered.

Senator David Norris: It is completely relevant. We are talking about energy. I am talking about the most vital form of energy for this country and calling on the Minister to ensure the Government makes it very clear that the bondholders will be included and that they will be forced to accept their share in terms of assets. It is perfectly legitimate for me to do this.

An Cathaoirleach: We are not going down that road. I expect the Senator to respect the Chair. As a long-standing Member of the House——

Senator David Norris: One Swiss bondholder owns 40% of the bonds and will get millions of euro from us.

An Cathaoirleach: I am suspending the sitting for five minutes.

Sitting suspended at 1.40 p.m. and resumed at 1.45 p.m.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris has five minutes left.

Senator David Norris: I thank the Cathaoirleach. I would like to make it clear that I did not mean any disrespect to this House, the Cathaoirleach or the Minister. I believed I was pursuing a perfectly logical course of action. The Chair has restricted me on this and, therefore, I will not pursue the matter at this stage. I was at that stage the last speaker and was not keeping anyone else out. I will continue my research in this area and will seek another opportunity when I will ventilate this matter fully because it is in the interests of the people, but I am happy now to yield to my colleague who I now understand wishes to speak.

Order of Business - 25th November 2010

2010-12-17T14:45:00.001Z

Order of Business – 25th November 2010
Senator David Norris: In view of the very difficult economic circumstances it is very interesting to see that 500 to 600 people were in the ballroom of the Shelbourne Hotel yesterday bidding for the Bank of Ireland art collection. That shows there is still money in the country but it is spread around very unevenly. I welcome the fact that the Irish Museum of Modern Art was given the opportunity to choose items to make up any gaps in its collection. I salute the fact that my colleague, Senator O’Toole, signalled that very early on.
We need to look at the people who do not have access to that kind of money. It is a beautiful day but a heavy snowfall is threatened. I was involved with Age Action Ireland in a campaign to try to get aid for elderly people who will be severely hit. There is a danger of hypothermia. I hope that if anyone is listening they will think of their neighbours at this very difficult time.
I agree with my colleagues, including Senator Cummins, who mentioned the situation regarding students and student grants. The Joint Committee on Education and Skills is meeting today on the matter. It has recommended legislation which would tidy up the situation. Let us not play politics with the issue. Let us get the legislation prepared and through the Houses as quickly as we can-----
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Hear, hear.
Senator David Norris: -----so students and their families do not always have to go through this anxious time. It hits a lot of people.
At the moment politics is being played in Brussels with the farm grant. Because of a dispute between the Commission and the Parliament grant payments will be further held up. Farmers are threatened. They are getting low prices for their produce. Now there is going to be a delay in receiving their grant payments. Where are they to get the money to support themselves given that the banks are not giving out money? It is a very difficult situation.
We still do not seem to have learned. I got an e-mail yesterday, as did other Members. I spoke to the former Leader of this House, Deputy Mary O’Rourke, who had also received it. It was from a woman in the midlands, a decent professional woman with grown-up sons who are college graduates. She parked in a bay for traders in a supermarket car park. She knew the traders only used it one day a week and it was not that day. She got a ticket and put it on her car and thought she was all right. She was in bed with the flu and the Garda arrived in a van to take her to Mountjoy yesterday. Are we mad or what? What are the priorities in this country? She is a very private person. She asked us to raise the matter but not to give her name as she does not want any publicity.
An Cathaoirleach: A private matter such as that is not relevant to the Order of Business.
Senator David Norris: Could we please get our priorities right? Could we please get values that serve the people of this country? Let us not be completely and utterly daft.

Statements on the National Recovery Plan 2011 - 2014 - 24th November 2010

2010-12-17T14:44:00.000Z

Statements on the National Recovery Plan 2011-2014 - 24 November 2010
Senator David Norris: There is a changing of the guard. I welcome my old friend from “Operation Transformation” and bid a sad farewell to my friend, the Green Party Minister of State. It does not matter much who is sitting in for the Government because this is not a terribly serious debate. I asked at the beginning whether it would be rolled over to another day and I was assured it would. I was on my way home only to be told it would not and since this is one of the critical moments in the history of the country, I considered it was important that I should say something, but it is just a marker. That is true for a few other Members because I listened to one or two contributions and they were rambling. There was inevitably a lack of focus because there has not been time to digest or examine the document in detail. There is a certain lack of seriousness. We are just a decoration, and that is part of the problem. There has been very little accountability to the Houses of the Oireachtas in terms of financial matters. All the big decisions have been taken outside parliamentary scrutiny to a very large extent and not just Seanad Éireann but Dáil Éireann are just a rubber stamp. We are not given responsibility.

On this subject, it is extraordinary, in the light of the way this country’s finances have been mishandled, that constitutionally this House is not trusted with even sufficient money to print an advertisement. Time and again people on all sides of this House have had significant amendments ruled out of order because they would create a charge upon the Exchequer. In the light of the colossal sums involved in our current difficult situation, that is laughable.

I want to make a few comments on the national recovery plan. I have glanced through it, and it is full of the usual graphs, tables and rhetoric. How do we know it will work? We could not even get things right up to this point. This goes back a long way. I recall raising the fact statistics from the Department of Finance were routinely way off the mark. I recall asking what qualifications there were and how the figures were arrived at, and I did that partly because people outside this House were concerned. They asked me if I could find out the reason the forecasts were so often wide of the mark. Now we have seen situations where €7 billion becomes €15 billion inside a week or two.

One of the problems, and it may not be a problem the Minister of State and his colleagues will have to deal with for very much longer, and that may come as a relief, is a lack of confidence — a lack of belief. There is a psychological atmosphere in the country that is poisoned by fear, anxiety and uncertainty. I hope when this plan is fleshed out in a finance Bill it will give some degree of certainty. That is what is needed.

I want to examine some of the elements. First, there is the question of the markets. We are in danger of missing an opportunity to take a radical philosophical look at the basis of the western economic structure, not just in Ireland but throughout the west. I believe this is a systemic failure. It is not just bad behaviour. The system does not meet the situation.

I recall being told in this House on several occasions that we could not do this or that. We could not let Anglo Irish Bank collapse, which I recommended from the very beginning, because it was of systemic importance. Many people around the House referred to systemic. That word was repeated like some kind of a mantra but we must look underneath that to see what it means. It means, basically, that the system is more important than the welfare of the people. This is a moment when we should say “no”. We should say that, collectively, as a responsible political class, as a Parliament and as a people, we are putting the rights and welfare of our citizens above the purported claims of the system.

With regard to the market, I predict confidently that these kind of catastrophic events will occur in closer conjunction, in more rapid succession and in more extreme form. This is not the end of it. We may just manage to get the sticking plaster on it in time to get us over this particular difficulty but it will recur unless we examine the entire system.

It is the same with climate change, and in my opinion the two are inter-related. There is not time, unfortunately, to go into that philosophically but it is perfectly obvious that western capitalism is based on a fairly crude interpretation of the market. It is based on the infinitely expanding market idea which meets a wall very quickly these days in terms of the finite resources of the planet, and therefore it is a contradiction. That will eventually have to be faced and we will have to revise the whole thing.

We have market sentiment and market confidence. How is confidence generated? How is confidence undermined? I would say much of what is going on is nothing other than a gigantic confidence trick.

Let us look at the banks. Basically, the banks are bust. We have shoved immeasurable quantities of money into them that are beyond the imagination of simple people like myself. We then went on and borrowed more money and shovelled it into the banks by the bucket load. Today we are told that because of German concerns about the rate of corporation tax the Government is prepared to introduce a levy on the banks. Perhaps the Minister of State can tell me what they intend to levy. Where is this levy coming from? It seems absurd.

It is rather like the little story that was going around about the American tourist who came into a little village hotel, plonked a €100 note on the counter and said he would like to inspect the rooms and he was leaving that money as a deposit. The owner of the hotel was delighted with that because he could pay his bill in the pub. The pub owner was knocking off the local tart and he was able to pay her. I am short-circuiting the story slightly. She was able to pay her room in the hotel. The American fellow then came back and took the €100.

It is very difficult to understand where the flaw in the logic is; it is just that money seems to go round. Nothing is actually paid but it circulates. The difficulty is that one person did not provide the service. That is the missing link in the chain, but that is the confidence trick and that is what has been going on.

Let us consider the ratings agencies because they are part of this whole set-up. Why do we not start rating the ratings agencies — Standard & Poor’s, Fitch, Moody’s and all those people? They are the people who got it wrong with Enron. They are the people who got it spectacularly wrong with Iceland to which they gave a three star rating a week before it went down the drain, so to speak. They are the very people who are giving us a triple star rating when we were doing all the sort of things that we are now being criminalised and criticised for. They did not spot it so why did they give us three stars? Why should we believe them now? Goldman Sachs and the rest of them were all up to their ears in helping the Greek Government massage its figures, and landed us in these waters. What are these ratings agencies which have been seen to be so incompetent and criminally corrupt with their involvement in sub-prime mortgages, and helping to conceal the toxic elements in those bundles and then validating them?

I used to teach in a university. The students would be thrilled to pieces if they believed they could buy their ratings, and that is what happened. Did they ever hear of a conflict of interest? Ratings agencies were being paid by the people they were rating. We should get rid of all this froth. Let us start rating the ratings agencies. That should be part of our price. I have been saying for two years that we in Europe should stand up to the ratings agencies and establish a fully independent trustworthy ratings agency and get rid of these people who have lost all credibility.

What about the hedge funds? These are the nice people who gamble against currencies in the hope they will collapse. They seem to have no feeling for the ordinary people on the ground. We should know a little bit more about them. I would like to know more about them. I got another requirement about which I am delighted. Let the people know what I am paid, what I do for my pay, the number of times I am in the place and so on. I am delighted because I believe my record will be pretty good, and it is all in the name of letting the people know.

How about letting the people know the names of the senior bond holders? Who are they? We have been asked to write a blank cheque for people we do not know with money we have not even borrowed yet. I would like to know who they are. Who are the people in the share funds? These are the people who are gambling against us. We should have their names. We should know who they are so we can rate them as well because it is an extraordinary position and people are entitled to that kind of information.

With regard to the banks, they showed a complete contempt for the small people who are their savers. The very least we expect from these documents is a reassurance for the ordinary people that their savings are intact. I said a long time ago in this House that the principal banks should be amalgamated and nationalised in one clean sweep, and Anglo Irish Bank let sink. I wish we had done that.

There is one way out of this, and perhaps the Minister of State will comment on this. We must punish those who gambled, those who got a higher rate of interest because of the risk involved. When that risk arrived, we insured them against it, indemnifying so they suffered not a jot. Why not do what David McWilliams has suggested and have a share for equity exchange and let them take the pain? That would get us off the hook; it would save €160 billion. The figures are unbelievable and I hope something of that sort will be tried. This is a moment when we should stand up to these financial institutions and ensure it is not just the little people once again who take the pain and that some of the big interests are forced to take the pain.

What has happened to moral hazard? Why are the rules of the market suspended in favour of the biggest financial interests? This is intolerable and unjustifiable. We can sell a measure of fairness and clarity to the people but cannot and should not sell muddle and unfairness, which seem to still rest at the heart of the financial system. I look forward to reviewing this when we have an opportunity to look at some of the details.

One of those details illustrates the difficulty we face: the €1 reduction in the minimum wage. That will hurt people, but this is precisely what was lobbied for by the restaurant industry, which needs it because it is in a bad situation. As often, it is a judgment call and at least something has been done. It will be difficult to defend against the mob.

I find it extraordinary that every second person in this country is now an economist. It took me a long time to get my head around any of these figures, and I do not understand some of them, but every second person knows the situation, knows the figures and can give a lecture on the circumstances. That is because there is no confidence; people are not leaving it to their “betters” to work these things out and it is a sad day to have to say that. I hope and trust we will get out of this situation. We will get out of it because of our creativity and imagination and without much help from the international banking system.

Communications Regulation (Postal Services) Bill 2010 - Second Stage Debate - 24th November 2010

2010-12-17T14:41:00.000Z

Communications Regulation (Postal Services) Bill 2010-Second Stage - 24 November 2010
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister, Deputy Ryan. However, I do not welcome this legislation. These are utilities which should provide maximise service to the public. I do not believe this will happen under this legislation. We have had the example of Eircom in respect of which we had forelock-tugging to abstract notions of privatisation and of competition. Where has competition got us in that context? Eircom was flung onto the market and taken over by one of the moguls, was asset stripped and thrown back like a herring bone picked clean. We have the lowest investment in broadband thanks to the competition to which we are paying such marked attention here. I do not believe in it.

We are talking about services to the community. Competition in this area will weaken rural services. There is no provision to protect people against the cherry picking that will take place. There is often no garda presence in rural areas. There may be in a local town a button one can push to speak to a machine. This legislation will result in a weakening of the personal contact which many people in isolated rural areas depend on in terms of the social fabric. I do not like that aspect of the legislation. I disregard the references in the Minister’s speech to effective competition. I do not bow down to these shibboleths, rather I look underneath them to see if they serve the people. In my opinion, most of the time they do not. The same is true of the markets and other notions to which we have allowed people to give absurd deference.

I accept there is a shifting pattern and that people use electronic communication. It may well be that the Minister has a point when he says the postal service needs to reassess itself. I am glad that it has been given some degree of security for seven years. I will not be supporting this Bill unless it is substantially amended. I welcome that at least the Minister has provided that there will be Exchequer support if an unfair burden is created on An Post. However, this indicates to me that the Minister knows well that there will be an unfair burden on it. We all know that. I do not accept that this legislation should be supported or that it is necessary.

I am not aware of what other speakers said earlier as I was attending a meeting. The historical base of our postal service under the universal service obligation is important in that it obliges the State services to deliver and collect mail for the same price, regardless of location. This is akin to the provision of social bus services in the country. The USO was supported and ensured An Post had exclusive rights to anything under 50 grammes. I do not believe it is good to abolish this and will be opposing this aspect of the legislation. It is important that we continue to regard this country as composed of a society of people and not as a market with competition and so on. I will be strongly supporting the principle of universal service obligation.

Senator Keaveney referred to cherry picking. We all know this is what is going to happen. This is what happens in a commercial market. A company would be wrong not to do so. That is the ethos, not of An Post, but of commercial firms. They will take the profitable routes and undercut An Post, which will be hamstrung because it will have to try to continue the unprofitable routes. This is unfair competition. If An Post loses its market share, it will be in serious financial trouble.

If one is to open up the market and fund the universal service obligation one has to impose on all operators the same obligation to deliver everywhere at the same price and in the same way. In other words, we must have market equalisation. Let us have a fair playing field as between An Post and these possible new entrants. These new entrants will also have downstream access whereby they can enter at a lower rate than An Post. The implications of this, in terms of employment, are stark. Royal Mail in Britain is losing money because it is delivering mail for competitors at a rate set by the regulator. It was the regulator that insisted on increases in gas and electricity, which was directly against the interest of the public and utility companies. The regulator has facilitated cherry picking. Some 21,000 full time and 12,000 part time jobs have been lost in Germany. I could go on and give more figures but I am sure other Members have already done so.

I am deeply suspicious of this legislation. I will be seeking to amend it. If it survives unamended, I will be opposing it.

Senator Paschal Mooney: I wish to share time with Senator MacSharry.

An Cathaoirleach: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Paschal Mooney: Senator Norris has stolen our thunder. However, it is an indication of the efficiency of the Communications Workers Union that the points raised by Senator Norris were emailed to all of us. I am grateful to Senator Norris in the sense that I do not have to reiterate everything he has said. What Senator Norris has articulated is reflective of our thinking——

Senator David Norris: Let the Minister take note that we are a united House for once.

Order of Business - 24th November 2010

2010-12-17T14:39:00.001Z

Order of Business – 24th November 2010
Senator David Norris: I wish I could agree with Senator Keaveney that the international media was hanging on our every word, as I doubt it. My more modest wish is that the Irish media would occasionally pay a little bit of attention to the House, but that is unlikely as long as we run it like the Ballymagash amateur musical and drama society. The named officers of the House are responsible for that, so I must put the wish to one side.
Three factors should be examined, those being, the markets, hedge funds and ratings agencies. The markets are in turmoil and we are constantly being derated. The attitude out there is that Dublin will be taken out first, then Madrid. A great deal of attention is paid to freedom of information requests on expenses claims. I have received another request and I am happy with it. Let us have a bit of openness about the bondholders. I want to know who they are. I want to see a list of their names.
Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: Hear, hear.
Senator David Norris: I have some idea of who is on it. I want to know who are behind the hedge funds. They are gambling against us. I want to know who is operating in the markets. A market is where items are bought and sold. The future of the Irish people is being bought and sold over their heads. It is slavery and nothing else.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: That is right.
Senator David Norris: We should listen to people like David McWilliams. Yesterday, I referred to the solution, namely, a shares for equity swap in the banks. It would wipe out €120 billion. David McWilliams was discussing it again this morning. He was right. We should consider doing this. It is perfectly clear to even a two year old that one does not solve a debt crisis by miring oneself endlessly in further debt.
Senator Ciaran Cannon: Hear, hear.
Senator David Norris: As long as the Government refuses to listen to creative solutions, we will fall further into the mire. It will pinch. I honour and respect my colleagues from all sides of the House who pointed to where this will hurt. It is not an abstract question. It is about people losing jobs and homes.
Yesterday, others and I attended the launch of the White Ribbon Campaign. It is called “The Other Half” and relates to the increasing risk of violence against women. Where there is domestic tension over budgets, paying bills and so on, violence against women will increase. This is the price paid.
The money has not gone away or evaporated. Rather, it is going into certain little pockets and I demand to know to whom they belong. I want to know who is in the hedge funds, who is running them and who is controlling the bond markets.

Order of Business - 23rd November 2010

2010-12-17T14:38:00.001Z

Order of Business – 23rd November 2010
Senator David Norris: Mr. Rehn has clearly indicated that the agreement is contingent on certainty flowing from the passing of the budget. For that reason it is very important that it is passed. That will provide us with certain opportunities, for example, to fling off some of the parasites of the political body in the Lower House. I refer to people who pose as Independents but who are, in fact, very happy to sell the interests of their country for small parochial advantage. We would be better off without them.
Senator Boyle referred to the interest in our difficulties of some of the international banks. A bank which I indicted in this House in a matter raised on the Adjournment which was taken up subsequently by the Allgemeine Zeitung is on the list of senior bondholders and has been using three of its subsidiaries, including an Austrian bank which stands indicted of moneylaundering for the mafia, to hoover up the money of the Irish taxpayer. It is very important that we review the situation. I placed a number of original suggestions before the House which were all ignored. I will now place before it a second-hand one, although it might also be ignored. I was impressed by what Mr. David McWilliams wrote in the Sunday newspapers in which he suggested it was not too late to convert the senior bondholders into shareholders of the banks and, therefore, save some money for the taxpayer. I hope this might happen.
I also hope there will be reasonably temperate language from politicians and commentators who seem to want to exacerbate the situation on the airwaves and in the newspapers. I listened with interest this morning to a number of Government supporters being interviewed on radio. One of them said the Taoiseach and his Government had led us in this very difficult situation. The preposition was wrong — the Taoiseach and his Government have led us into this situation. However, it is not an opportunity for all of us to score partisan political points. We have to recognise he made decisions in what he thought at the time were the best interest. There is no doubt, however, that there is responsibility there.
I am sure it was well intentioned but another person said that this was a time when we all as politicians should put the interests of the country before the interests of the party. Surely, for God’s sake, that is what we should do all the time. That is what I have done for the past 25 years in this House. It is essential that as a matter of course and routine we put the interests of the country above the interests of the party and learn we are here to serve the people. The people never needed it more.
An Cathaoirleach: I thank the Senator. I call on Senator O’Malley.
Senator David Norris: They have never needed more than they do now the reassurance of decency, integrity and standards in public life.

Order of Business - 18th November 2010

2010-12-17T14:37:00.000Z

Order of Business - 18th November 2010
Senator David Norris: I have a question which I wish to address to the House, the Leader, the Cathaoirleach and the Government. Are we going to be a Europe of the people or a Europe of the banks? We have heard a great deal about reassurance. It has been stated that we must reassure the banks, the bondholders and our European neighbours, several of which have taken the opportunity to stab us in the back now that we are in difficulty. It has also been suggested — most laughably of all — that we must reassure the discredited ratings agencies. When will this country, the Parliament, the Government and the European Union reassure the Irish people? The latter are the only ones who have not been given reassurance.

The psychological atmosphere in this country has been poisoned by fear, distrust and uncertainty. Meanwhile we are negotiating — very painfully apparently — for a loan which will be used to repay the bondholders and the banks. The latter are lending us money in order that we can repay them and they are of the opinion that we should be grateful for this. It has been stated that Austria and a number of other countries have raised questions with regard to our 12.5% rate of corporation tax. I stated some time ago that it was dangerous to base an economy on fragile things of this nature. However, this is not the time to discuss that matter.

I have just come from a very interesting meeting relating to rural Ireland at which Senator Leyden was also present. Those who addressed the meeting indicated that they had engaged in consultations throughout the country. The final item on the agenda related to an attitude survey, which indicated that 90% of people believe that good neighbours are the most important thing in life. Where are Ireland’s neighbours? It is as if we had been burgled and the neighbours are coming in to provide assistance and make cups of tea. When inside, they say things such as “I loaned you those curtains five years ago. Can I have them back?”, “That is my lawn-mower” and “That is the chair my granny gave me”. That is what is happening at present and a stop should be put to it.

Reference has been made to confidence. I do not retain any confidence in the system. What is being perpetrated is a confidence trick on the people who are paying for what has happened. Those to whom I refer are entitled to an explanation, to reassurance and to be informed, in clear and direct terms, with regard to what is happening.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator’s time is up.

Senator David Norris: We want a European Community not a European economy.

Prohibition of Depleted Uranium Weapons Bill 2009 - Committee and Remaining Stages - 17th November 2010

2010-12-17T14:29:00.000Z

Prohibition of Depleted Uranium Weapons Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages - 17th November 2010
An Cathaoirleach: Amendment No. 1 has been ruled out of order on the grounds that it would expand the scope of the Bill.

Amendment No. 1 not moved.

Senator Dominic Hannigan: I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, subsection (2), line 14, after “Minister” to insert “for Foreign Affairs”.

The purpose of the amendment is to insert “for Foreign Affairs” after “Minister” because there is no definition of “Minister” in the Bill.

Senator Dan Boyle: I thank the Labour Party Senators for proposing this amendment. I believe it is a drafting improvement and I am quite happy to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: “That section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill.”

Senator David Norris: I seek an explanation, although perhaps it will not be possible to provide one. Did I understand the Cathaoirleach to state amendment No. 1 was ruled out of order because it caused a charge on the Exchequer?

An Cathaoirleach: No, it was ruled out of order for expanding the scope of the Bill.

Senator David Norris: I see. I thank the Cathaoirleach.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 2

An Cathaoirleach: Amendment No. 3 is ruled out of order as it would expand the scope of the Bill.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Question proposed: “That section 2 stand part of the Bill.”

Senator David Norris: I do not mean to be pestiferous but how can a deletion expand the scope of a Bill? Surely it would contract it. Could I have an explanation on this?

Senator Dan Boyle: I can speak on section 2 if it helps.

Senator David Norris: Yes.

An Cathaoirleach: It is outside the scope of the Bill.

Senator David Norris: That is not what I asked; I know that. With the Cathaoirleach’s permission, the proposer of the Bill has offered an explanation.

An Cathaoirleach: The amendment is out of order and we will not discuss it.

Senator David Norris: He will speak on the section.

An Cathaoirleach: If a Senator wishes to speak on the section he or she is entitled to.

Senator David Norris: I think Senator Boyle does.

Senator Dan Boyle: I am quite happy to expand on the decision on the proposed amendments. The Bill is quite specific on a category of weapons known as depleted uranium. The deletion of the word “depleted” would mean the Bill would be about uranium weapons in general, which is a far wider scope and includes nuclear weapons which would require a far deeper definition. The Bill is meant to be narrow in its focus to achieve a certain goal and on those grounds the amendments have been ruled out of order.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3

An Cathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 are related and will be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Dominic Hannigan: I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, to delete line 24 and substitute the following:

“(1) No person may within the State (including on any Irish registered ship or aircraft), or, being an Irish citizen, whether within or without the State:”.

It was remiss of me to fail to welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Dick Roche. I also welcome the Bill. It is a tremendous piece of work and I compliment Senator Dan Boyle on his work in bringing it to the House. I also wish to pay tribute to a previous Member of the House, Deirdre de Búrca, who was also instrumental in ensuring the Bill came before us. She has since moved on to other things; I believe she is alive and well and happy. It is only fair and right to record her influence in ensuring the Bill saw the light of day.

We contend that amendment No. 4 is necessary because the Bill as drafted imposes obligations only on the State. We believe it should apply to all persons and I am interested to hear Senator Boyle’s response on this.

Senator Dan Boyle: Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 are being taken together. Does Senator Hannigan also wish to speak to amendment No. 6?

Senator Dominic Hannigan: I thought they were grouped together but that I would speak to amendment No. 6 after.

An Cathaoirleach: The two amendments are being taken together. Senator Hannigan may speak to amendment No. 6 now but if he does not do so I cannot return to it afterwards.

Senator Dominic Hannigan: I will speak briefly on amendment No. 6. We are concerned that the Bill as drafted has no penalties for breach of the obligations set out in it. Amendment No. 6 would insert a clause calling for penalties such as a term of imprisonment of ten years or a fine or both. We believe this would strengthen the Bill.

Senator David Norris: With regard to amendment No. 4, I am curious to know what type of persons Senator Hannigan and the Labour Party have in mind for the functions that are involved. Perhaps, with reason, he would extend beyond the forces of the State — the State or its agencies — prohibition from testing, developing and producing uranium ammunition and armoured plate or from using, acquiring or disposing of depleted uranium in any way for military purposes. I wonder whether anyone other than prescribed or terrorist organisations or criminals would get involved in this type of thing. I would assume they might be covered by other aspects of the criminal law if they were so occupied.

I would have no difficulty with the amendment and I certainly support strongly its sentiments. I do not think anybody in the State should be messing around with this material. I support the intention of the amendment but I am curious to know what is the target of the amendment. Is there a feeling that there are people who are, as we speak, testing, acquiring or developing uranium ammunition, uranium armour-plate or other uranium weapons? I am reluctant to think so but perhaps I am just naive.

I completely endorse amendment No. 6. The Bill will be toothless if we do not have penalties. There is no point in stating something is wrong and that it is prohibited unless there are penalties attached to such behaviour. My reading of this very admirably concise Bill does not suggest to me that there are any and this would seem to be a serious omission. There may be a technical reason for this; I do not know. I certainly encourage the formulators of this legislation to examine the possibility of including some penalty. If we want to deter people just ink on paper will not be very effective, particularly if they are the type of people who are interested in manufacturing, using or employing uranium ammunition, uranium armour-plate or other uranium weapons. I suppose this would only come into effect because they are linked if they were people in addition to the State who were involved. On the other hand, people who are in the employ of the State might well involve themselves in this, despite the fact it was against the law and in that case they should be punished. I am not sure the State can punish itself but it can certainly punish its agents.

I did not have the opportunity to welcome the Minister of State. I saw him on television last night on a programme. The Minister of State’s charming visage suddenly loomed at me out of the night and I expect he could have done with a bit of depleted uranium armour on that occasion.

An Cathaoirleach: That is not relevant to the Bill.

Senator David Norris: But it is really because he might be manufacturing it in his back yard to protect himself against the assaults of the pseudo-intellectuals of the Dublin 4 media conspiracy.

Senator Dan Boyle: I would never accuse Senator Norris of being naive. As regards the concept of the State being able to punish itself, we currently seem to be involved in a national self-flagellation exercise so it is obviously physically possible but whether it is possible in a more formal legal sense can be debated further.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 are intrinsically linked because one follows on from the other. I am not unsympathetic towards them. Senator Norris has pointed out one of the difficulties involved in that there can only be two categories of people involved in both definitions being accepted; one category is Irish citizens involved in terrorist activities and the presumption is that this would in any case be precluded by existing legislation; the other category is members of the Defence Forces engaged in international duties and any proximity they may have to forces of other countries who have not taken this legislative approach of banning depleted uranium weapons. This might be a step too far and my hope is that if we pass All Stages of the Bill in this House that when adopted in another form in the other House and subsequently returned to this House we can return to the question of fines and imprisonment because it is important. On that basis I am not willing to accept these amendments as of now.

Senator David Norris: I welcome the view that this is an incremental situation. We had this argument about the cluster bombs issue and most Members who have taken the trouble to be involved in this issue were also involved in that debate. It was the same situation in which some substantial armies, regrettably involving people who present themselves as defenders of western values, were quite prepared to use and manufacture cluster munitions until a pretty late stage. We wanted to detach ourselves from this. I would regard that as the correct position. As my distinguished colleague, Senator Boyle spoke, I was more inclined to support the Labour Party’s amendment because I do not think it right, correct or honourable for Irish military personnel to be involved in the use of these things. If we regard them as wrong and as dangerous and that inevitably there will be civilian casualties — although this is denied in a most dishonest way by the British military authorities — then if in light of those impacts on the civilian population, particularly the development of various diseases, notably clusters of cancers and blood diseases, I do not think our soldiers, sailors or members of the Air Corps should be involved. I strongly support the Labour Party amendment.

I was being slightly jocose about the Minister of State’s appearance on television last night but I wish to put on the record of the House that the Minister of State, Deputy Dick Roche, has been right to the fore in supporting this kind of progressive legislation. I raised related issues quite recently and the Minister of State was not available as he was abroad. I think the debate would have taken a very different turn in terms of the script written for the particular Minister in the House at the time had Deputy Roche been in the driving seat on that occasion. I am very glad he is here to take charge of this debate. In a circumstance where a Minister is not available, through no fault of his own, and a script is delivered that contradicts what was said on previous occasions by that Minister, it is only honourable that those of us on this side of the House who are taking part in both debates should place on the record of the House the honourable position adopted by the Minister of State in these matters. It is all part and parcel of his approach to human rights in terms of defence and strategy. I welcome the fact he is here and the leader of the Green Party and his colleagues are here to present the Bill.

Senator Dominic Hannigan: I am pleased with the support I have obtained from my colleague, Senator Norris. I listened carefully to Senator Boyle and I am content to wait on the deliberations from the other House if he is saying he is convinced that the law, as it currently stands, will cater for the situations we outlined. I will be happy to withdraw the amendment and return to it at a later stage and I take the Senator at his word.

An Cathaoirleach: This Bill will not return on another day as it will conclude tonight.

Senator Dominic Hannigan: I will speak to my colleagues in the other House. Deputy Ciarán Lynch is very interested in this Bill and I will speak to him and he may table amendments in the other House. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Senator Dan Boyle: I am grateful for that approach from Senator Hannigan. As I said in my earlier contribution I am quite happy to have the definition of penalties such as fines and imprisonment included in an eventual piece of legislation. We are trying to get the principle through. While recognising the positive contribution the Minister of State has made to this legislation, particularly on Second Stage, the House should know that if it decides tonight, Ireland would be only the second or third country in the world to pass legislation of this type. Ireland has pioneered successful legislation on cluster bombs. This Bill adopts the same principles by providing for a general prohibition on a class of weapons. I would be glad to assist the process of trying to encourage other countries to support an international ban. I hope this legislation will be dealt with in both Houses.

Senator David Norris: I wish to make a brief comment on amendments Nos. 4 and 6. It is a continuation of the discussion between Senator Boyle and Senator Hannigan. As I understand what Senator Boyle said, there would be no need for this kind of offence to be punishable by fine or imprisonment in terms of the criminal classes because other legislation will come into play there. However, I do not believe he intended to imply that this would exist for military personnel under the command, for example, of an allied commander in Chad or wherever. There are two situations, one, the criminal situation which is addressed and two, the military situation which is not addressed but there is a tactical reason for this, in other words, that the Bill might have difficulty in passing or that it might be a step too far for our allies. I would be prepared to take that risk but I will not force it to a vote as it would not be my choice in any case. It is very important to continue this historic progress but we should do so knowing exactly what we are doing and not with a vague assumption that everything is as the House and all Members of the House wish because I do not think that is the case. It may very well be that my distinguished colleague, Senator Hannigan, will wish to speak to his colleagues in the Lower House and advise them of the situation to see whether they wish to table these amendments. It is very important that we assist in the passage of this legislation.

Senator Dominic Hannigan: I am willing to withdraw the amendment at this stage. As Senator Norris mentioned, I will be speaking to my colleagues in the other House about this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator Dominic Hannigan: I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, subsection (2), line 3, to delete “Republic of Ireland” and substitute “State”.

This is a straightforward amendment which seeks to delete the words “Republic of Ireland” and substitute “State” as this is the correct way to refer to the State in legislation.

Senator Dan Boyle: I am grateful to Senator Hannigan for his amendment. The official name of the State is not “Republic of Ireland”, although it is the official name of our soccer team. As his amendment represents a drafting improvement, I am happy to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment No. 6 not moved.

TITLE

An Cathaoirleach: Amendment No. 7 is out of order because it expands the scope of the Bill.

Amendment No. 7 not moved.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: “That the Bill do now pass.”

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Deputy Dick Roche): I am pleased to contribute to the debate on the Prohibition of Depleted Uranium Weapons Bill 2009 because, as Senator Norris noted, I have a particular interest in this issue. I commend Senator Boyle for highlighting the importance of this legislation. This House will be only the second legislature in the world to take this step. I am not a Member of this House but, if I was, I would vote for this Bill.

Ireland has never possessed armaments or munitions containing depleted uranium. We share the concerns raised by the United Nations General Assembly about the potential risks associated with the use of depleted uranium. Since 2007, we have voted in favour of UN resolutions on depleted uranium munitions and remain fully committed to pursuing our concerns through all appropriate fora.

In 2008, UN Resolution A/C.1/63/L.26 called on the Secretary General “to request relevant international organizations, to update and complete, as appropriate, their studies and research on the effects of the use of armaments and ammunition containing depleted uranium on human health and the environment”. The resolution also invited member states to facilitate such studies and research and “to communicate to the Secretary-General their views on the effects of the use of armaments and munitions containing depleted uranium”. Ireland submitted a report to the Secretary General setting out our views and confirming our concerns about the potential harmful effects of munitions containing depleted uranium on human health and the environment. The report also noted that, while a number of studies have been conducted by international organisations, no definitive conclusion has been drawn on the potential adverse effect of use of such munitions.

I am somewhat surprised that international agencies do not share a view, which seems to stem from common sense, that putting depleted uranium in weapons and pumping it into the ground of unfortunate countries is not a good thing to do. That, however, is the way of international politics.

Ireland will continue to monitor the issue closely, particularly in respect of studies and research. We recognise the vital work being done by NGOs such as the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons. Officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs keep in contact with the latter organisation.

Senator Boyle’s Bill will have the effect of enshrining in statute Government policy. This Bill is welcome because it states where we stand. When this issue next arises for discussion within the European Union, we will be able to say that Ireland has taken this step. While the Government takes the view that it is probably not necessary to give legislative effect to this matter, it has decided against opposing the Bill. I welcome that decision because, as Senator Boyle will be aware, my clearly expressed view is that we should introduce legislation.

Were we to accept Senator Hannigan’s proposed amendments, a regulatory impact assessment would be necessary to determine the knock-on effect of creating a criminal offence. It might, for example, have implications for the Defence Forces in UN operations.

The Government supports enshrining in legislation our decision as a nation to have no truck with this form of weaponry. We support the spirit of the Bill and commend Senator Boyle and other Senators on raising the profile of the important issue. I assure Senators that the Government will address the concerns that underlie the Bill at a policy level and we will continue to advocate for progress at international disarmament fora. Given the unanimous support the Bill has enjoyed in this House, it would be very difficult for any future Government to reverse it.

Senator Dominic Hannigan: I wholeheartedly agree with the remarks of the Minister of State and commend Senator Boyle and the former Senator, Deirdre de Búrca, on introducing this legislation. Although we are in a difficult financial situation at present, we should not lose sight of the other important matters on our agenda. I am pleased to support the Bill’s passage through the House.

Several of our European neighbours continue to stockpile depleted uranium weapons. I will not name them now, although I have identified them in the past. I hope this legislation puts pressure on our European neighbours as well as on the international community because if we have acted, so can they.

Senator David Norris: I commend Senator Boyle and his Green Party colleagues on this Bill. It is refreshing to hear from a Minister of State who takes such a wide-ranging interest in these matters. A very estimable organisation, Afri, has campaigned for legislation in this area, as well as on the issue of cluster bombs. It was instrumental in bringing over Mr. Doug Weir, who is the head of a lobby group that is based in the United Kingdom but not confined to that jurisdiction. The group in question has campaigned for many years for the banning of these weapons.

I strongly feel it is important that we issue an instruction that our military personnel should not engage with these weapons. I think that would be universally accepted in this House. It may well be a tactical matter. That is why I did not call a vote on it. I suggest that the Labour Party and Green Party should talk to their colleagues in the other House and to the Government to see whether this can be done. The Minister of State made a cogent point when he said this principle was universally accepted in the Seanad this evening. Nobody spoke against it.

Acting Chairman (Senator Michael McCarthy): I remind the Senator that some of his colleagues are waiting to raise certain matters on the Adjournment. I ask him to keep his comments as brief as possible.

Senator David Norris: I will, but I want to say what I have to say. I have often been kept waiting here.

Acting Chairman (Senator Michael McCarthy): The Senator should be brief.

Senator David Norris: It is only 7 p.m. The debate in Private Members’ time could have continued for longer.

Acting Chairman (Senator Michael McCarthy): It is now almost finished. The Bill is about to be passed.

Senator David Norris: I will not go on at length, but there are some points I would like to make.

Acting Chairman (Senator Michael McCarthy): Senator Bradford is waiting to speak on the Adjournment.

Senator David Norris: I will say what I have to say and you will have to put up with it. The European Parliament has passed a similar resolution, supported by 94% of MEPs, requiring a total ban. However, the United Kingdom will not do so. I insist on making this point. I am not ashamed to mention the UK authorities in this context. They have withheld information, including scientific information, on the disposition of landmines, etc. They have claimed that there is no point in supporting research because of the lack of information. They are playing a damnably double game. I hope the transcript of this debate will be sent to them. I am glad the Bill is being passed tonight. I welcome the legislation and congratulate those involved.

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: I will be brief. I commend all Senators on their positive approach to this important landmark legislation. I particularly commend the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, for his positive contribution. He took the trouble to sit down with the Green Party Senators on a number of occasions to discuss the issue. It is obvious that we want to move forward on a Europe-wide basis also. We need to look at this aspect, as we want this legislation to be effective. It is in keeping with Ireland’s great tradition of introducing progressive legislation in this area. I refer to initiatives such as those taken by Mr. Frank Aiken. This is a good Bill. I particularly commend the work of my colleague, Senator Boyle. I also commend Senator Dearey. As Senator Hannigan rightly pointed out, our former colleague, Déirdre de Búrca, should also be mentioned in this context.

7 o’clock

Senator Mark Dearey: I hope the passage of this Bill will encourage other countries to introduce legislation on depleted uranium weapons. A raft of other legislation will probably be required in the future because depleted uranium weapons leave behind a legacy that affect civilians, rather than military personnel. Their legacy is not covered by the Ottawa and Oslo treaties which set out specific requirements for dealing with anti-personnel mines and cluster bombs. The only legislative hold on the matter is through international human rights legislation. A lot of work remains to be done at international level and further treaties need to be agreed to deal with the explosive remnants of war. We need to address the lacuna in international treaties. If this legislation prompts our colleagues around Europe, in particular, to introduce similar measures and extend the reach of existing treaties to deal with depleted uranium weapons left behind after combat, we will have done a good evening’s work of lasting consequence. I thank Senators Hannigan and Norris for their contributions. I am always extremely enervated by debate on nuclear matters and I look forward to a further debate on nuclear energy at some stage.

Acting Chairman (Senator Michael McCarthy): I thank the Senator for being brief.

Senator Dan Boyle: The passage of a Private Members’ Bill in either House is a rare and significant event. I thank those who helped us to arrive at this stage. The passage of this important Bill which relates to a weapon that is horrible in its content and effect is a statement of what this House and the country can do to bring about a better world. I thank the staff of the Bills Office for the assistance they offered us when we were preparing the Bill. I thank the officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs who shared their expertise in parsing its various sections. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, for his ongoing support both this evening and on Second Stage. I thank Opposition Senators for their full-blooded co-operation throughout our consideration of the Bill. I thank the staff of the Seanad Office for their help with the procedures involved in bringing a Private Members’ Bill through all Stages which is, as I said, a significant and rare event.

We now have to consider whether we should try to bring the legislation through the Dáil in Private Members’ time. Perhaps the Government will choose to adopt the spirit of the Bill. We will have interesting negotiations on the matter. I encourage all Members to use the co-operation they enjoy with Members of the other House and legislators in other European Parliaments to try to have this concept accepted. I especially thank many of Afri’s key workers in Ireland who have helped to push it. I also thank those involved in the international campaign against the use of depleted uranium weapons. I hope today’s events will be marked by those of us who sit in this Chamber and others who care about making progress on this agenda. I thank everyone for their co-operation.

Question put and agreed to.

Statements on the National Paediatrics Hospital - 17th November 2010

2010-12-17T14:26:00.000Z

Statements on the National Paediatrics Hospital - 17th November 2010
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister, although she is leaving the Chamber. I am sure the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Moloney, will communicate my views to her. It is a pity a script was not supplied because, even though I was present to hear most of the Minister’s contribution, I had a difficulty in catching her more technical comments. Furthermore, I missed part of her contribution because I had to leave to take an urgent telephone call. To assist in the proper running of the House, there should be a requirement on Ministers to circulate copies of their speeches, especially on important matters such as this. The Minister is extremely competent. She is very good at dealing with matters on her feet and throwing out general and vague ideas. It is not enough for her to believe she is supported by a majority of consultants. We need to know how many hold the different opinions on this issue. If we know how they are divided, as parliamentarians, we can make a decision on the evidence presented. The Minister is highly driven. However, I do not always happen to believe in the ideological forces driving her. It is important, therefore, that we receive this information.

For a number of reasons I wish to speak briefly about the timeline for this development. A number of years have passed since I placed a motion on the Seanad Order Paper asking the Government to establish an international peer review of the hospital, particularly its location. At the time — three, four or five years ago — I was advised by senior professionals in the paediatric field that such a review was necessary. It was suggested it could be conducted expeditiously, perhaps within six weeks. It is a matter of concern that the proposal was not accepted by the Government. I have highlighted this point because I do not want it to be said I am a Johnny come lately who is raising objections at the last minute. I am not one of those colourfully referred to by the Minister as “rocking with delight” when they hear bad news in the morning. I do not have an appetite for bad news. I consider it necessary for a good, modern, national facility to be established in the interests of our children’s welfare. If we are to make a proper and balanced decision on the matter, we need access to all of the information. I am not a Johnny come lately. I made a rational request for the matter to be reviewed. It would not have significantly impeded or delayed the development of the hospital. It would have cleared the air and made it absolutely obvious that there were no vested interests involved. It would have made it clear that the process of deciding on the location and development of the national children’s hospital was proper, fair and judicious.

This has re-emerged as a central issue principally because of the resignation of Mr. Philip Lynch in recent months. This was an astonishing development. His departure was subject to obscurity because he said he had resigned but the Minister said she had pushed him. It is not clear whether he resigned or was pushed. He went in any case. He outlined the reasons for his departure in a statement:

There were fundamental differences between the Minister and myself on the need for open and informed discussion at Board level at all times on a range of substantive issues relating to the NPHDB. Amongst the issues outlined were:

The substantial funding gap

The development of the AMNCH at Tallaght

Clarity or absence of governance proposals for the new Hospital

Effectiveness of stakeholder communications

Planning and design challenges for the Mater site

The Minister dealt, to a certain extent, with the “clarity or absence of governance proposals” in response to Senator Fitzgerald. On the evening Mr. Lynch’s resignation was announced, I happened to be in the company of a member of the board of the group. When I asked the person in question about the matter, I was astonished to be told the €110 million funding gap could be met by philanthropy. This is not the kind of economic climate in which we can anticipate such significant philanthropy. The Minister has mentioned that in Canada $98 million was raised through philanthropy. I remind her that the economic climate in Canada is completely different because its banks operated judiciously and prudently. It is in a wonderful position — it is not at all threatened. People in Canada who have money to spare can engage in these philanthropic exercises. I was not particularly thrilled to hear Ronald McDonald would be involved in the project. It seems we are relying on the sale of hamburgers to provide our children’s hospital. Reference was also made to the philanthropic interests of the pharmaceutical industry. That is a new one on me. We know philanthropic companies are very efficient at squeezing the Government. They have squeezed the public dry in terms of prescription drugs and all the rest of it. I would be interested in probing a little further the idea that they are about to become philanthropic. What will they get out of the taxpayer in these circumstances?

There is a series of contradictions in this context. I was interested to read a recent article in The Irish Times by its former environmental correspondent, Mr. Frank McDonald. I think I can say he fully supported the hospital. The article was accompanied by a nice picture showing abstract art in it. Although Mr. McDonald was lyrical in his praise of such aspects of the project, he did not mention that access was one of the critical elements of the development. This difficulty was addressed by the Minister and others when they referred to the development of the metro north project. I remind the House that Mr. McDonald has devoted almost all of his entire journalistic career to trying to prevent the metro north project. This is another of the contradictions to which I refer.

I took the liberty of interrupting the Minister to ask her about the matter of access which is particularly important. It was being discussed when I was listening to the wireless one day — I am not sure whether it was on the Joe Duffy programme. If somebody is talking sense, it does not matter to me whether it is on “A Prayer at Bedtime” or the Joe Duffy programme. While there is a great deal of hot air and a lot of rubbish is spoken on the Joe Duffy programme, there is also a certain amount of sense from time to time. The programme to which I refer covered the story of a woman who had tried to drive her seriously ill child who was moving towards having peritonitis to the Mater Hospital. She was prevented from going down one street because there was a match in Croke Park, a factor we need to take into account in this context. After she had managed to get into the car park and park her car, she went through what she thought was the main entrance, only to be told it was not the proper entrance and that she needed to walk to a different entrance. Her child developed peritonitis when his appendix burst before it could be operated on, but, luckily, his life was saved. Such things can happen. That is why access is important. It is dangerous to say excellence in treatment is more important than access. There must be a balance between the two. I do not doubt that the boy in this case received excellent treatment, but if he had not been able to access the hospital in time, it would have been of no use. One can have a world-class facility, but one will have a real difficulty if people cannot gain access to it in critical circumstances.

I am familiar with a document that criticised the work of the location task group because “no study of ambulance transport times or traffic impact on Emergency Access” from the proposed new “enlarged catchment area”, the entire greater Dublin area, to Dublin hospitals was undertaken. The document continued:

It is essential that ambulance access times to the Mater ... from the outreaches of the catchment area should have been studied. Life-threatening emergencies do not respect gridlock from rush hour, All-Ireland finals, events at the O2 or the RDS, city centre marches etc. The absence of these two studies . . . is a gaping and dangerous defect in the Task Group’s report.

The task group’s report was produced four years ago, probably around the time I proposed that a peer review be undertaken. Such issues should have been covered in the examination of the suitability of the site, but that did not happen. God knows, I am not against the location from a personal point of view. It is located right next door to me and I would like the infrastructure of the north inner city to be built up. As the principal proponent of the metro north project, I would be pleased to see it going ahead. However, I cannot blind myself to these questions.

I wish to give another example of the continuing series of contradictions in this regard. On 7 March 2006 the HSE website carried the following announcement on the children’s hospital site:

The outcome process has not been predetermined . . . It is open and objective to the point where the outcome may even be a decision to locate somewhere other than an existing hospital site . . . Any suggestion that this group has prejudged anything is completely misplaced.

It appears the situation had altered by 29 March 2006, however, as a message on the same website announced:

This process is to recommend only where the hospital is to be sited . . . The prime consideration in making this decision on site location will depend on co-location to an adult teaching academic hospital and adult national centres of treatment.

That decision had been made in principle, so there is a contradiction there. That is regrettable and could have been obviated.

In regard to the rigorous, robust and independent process about which the Minister spoke, in a press statement on 11 January she said the task force engaged in extensive consultation with the three existing paediatric hospitals, the three maternity hospitals and external experts in arriving at its recommendations. There were no hospital site visits. There was one meeting with each of the three children’s hospitals and they were all held on the same day, 26 May.

As far as the external experts are concerned, one of them, who has been extensively quoted by the Minister and the Department, Sir Alan Craft, a past president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health in the United Kingdom, said in a letter to The Irish Times, because he was concerned by the impression being given by the officials, that the extensive consultation referred to consisted of a telephone conversation with a member of the task force to discuss the parameters against which a decision regarding location could be made and which other specialties should ideally be co-located. He said he did not see the report nor was he involved in making the decisions. There is a whole raft of contradictions and I would like to refer to one or two more.

The RKW report states:

This brief . . . takes as given:

The McKinsey recommendation that all Dublin secondary inpatient beds should be co-located with the tertiary services.

The decision of the Task Group endorsed by the HSE that the hospital should be located at the Mater site.

RKW, the consultants, were not allowed to examine a situation as fundamental as the matter of the site. They referred to issues regarding environmental quality which relate to the density of building on the site but were not able to deal with it.

I mention car parking. As a matter of policy, car parking is limited by Dublin City Council in the city centre. We were told 800 spaces would be provided. Proportionately, that is fewer than the current number in Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children. In an emergency, how many people are going to use the metro? I am a big fan of the metro but will people use it? Will it go ahead? It may well not go ahead.

It appears a certain amount of academic and inter-hospital politicking was going on. In the interests of the children of this country, we need to ensure the best possible thing is done. I do not want to impede the development of the national paediatric hospital. I am not a johnny-come-lately; I have raised these real questions consistently and they cannot be answered by bluster. I regret the Minister did not have a speech and that——

Senator Fiona O’Malley: The Minister spoke.

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: There was a Minister’s speech.

Senator Fiona O’Malley: What does Senator Norris mean there was not a speech?

Senator David Norris: A text was not made available.

Senator Fiona O’Malley: Senator Norris means a script.

Senator David Norris: A script.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: There is no requirement for a Minister’s script.

Senator Fiona O’Malley: Senator Norris said the Minister did not make a speech. She made a speech.

Senator David Norris: I apologise. I accept Senator O’Malley’s correction.

(Interruptions).

Senator David Norris: I will sit down because I have obviously scored a palpable hit — a minor technical correction from one of the principal supporters of someone I regard as a valiant Minister. However, this is a mess.

Order of Business - 17th November 2010

2010-12-17T14:23:00.002Z

Order of Business - 17th November 2010
Senator David Norris: I very much doubt if either the establishment of a casino in County Tipperary which is projected, or an increase in the number of jobs in the area of gambling will have a major impact on the economy of Ireland or Europe, although I wish the proposed solutions will work.
Three years ago I gave a lecture in Cork in honour of Mr. Philip Monahan, the former city and county manager of Cork and a remarkable man, in which I stated that, as with developments in addressing climate change, financial events of the type we are experiencing would be more catastrophic and would occur at an increasingly rapid rate and closer together. That is what has transpired and we are tinkering with the problem by applying an Elastoplast to it. We do not have a profound analysis of what is wrong with the entire system which is being manipulated in the interests of a tiny group of speculators, domestically and on international money markets, to the enormous disadvantage of the vast swathe of the population outside this small group. What I call the Leona Helmsley effect has come into play. Leona Helmsley was a woman with an enormous property portfolio who was dragged into court in New York on tax charges ten or 15 years ago. Her statement that she assumed only the little people paid tax was correct. No one is examining the matter in a thorough manner. Let us consider the whole capitalist project. How can it continue to work when it is based on an infinitely expanding market? How intelligent must one be to realise we are living on a planet, the limits of which are being reached in certain fundamental commodities such as water and fossil fuels? It is about time we stood up collectively to the big players in the market. It is time we, as a nation, stood up to some of the big companies such as Shell.

One cannot blame them as they are akin to Tyrannosaurus rex but we should stand up.

An Cathaoirleach: I thank the Senator.

Senator David Norris: There is more money there than would pay ten times Ireland’s entire exposure to the banks.

An Cathaoirleach: I call Senator Ó Murchú.

Senator David Norris: We have allowed the international combines get away with it for nothing and are only allowed to buy our own products.

Order of Business - 16th November 2010

2010-12-17T14:21:00.002Z

Order of Business - 16th November 2010
Senator David Norris: As always, it is very interesting to hear what my colleague, Senator O’Toole, has to say. He says he has now changed his mind on matters such as the bank guarantee. I am in exactly the same position I was in. I disagree with the Senator in that the problem is not just a European one but also an American one. Global circumstances need to be considered. I hope the contagion will not be allowed to spread from the economy into society. We have an obligation to the citizens of Europe which needs to be protected rather than the interests of the gamblers, financial speculators and financial institutions. We should not allow these values to be removed from us.
I agree with what Senator Ormonde said. I read the same article as her. I remember when a former editor of The Irish Times, Mr. Douglas Gageby, was the head of the Irish News Agency. Part of its job was to contact the opinion formers and correct misinterpretations. There is a serious situation, but there is a lot of positive information that should be circulated. Mistakes should be corrected.
Will the Leader contact the Minister for Foreign Affairs to ask him to take up with the Israeli authorities the case of Mr. Shawan Jabarin who was a student in Galway in the Irish Centre for Human Rights? He is to be awarded a distinguished graduate honour at its tenth anniversary celebrations, at which I will be the master of ceremonies. The centre has asked me to take up the matter. Mr. Jabarin is committed to a policy of non-violence and a civic leader among the Palestinian people. He has been arrested, imprisoned and tortured, but he still continues with his work. He is banned because of his involvement with the Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq. The ban has been upheld by the Israeli courts and is all of a piece with a matter raised previously in the House, namely, the case of a young female student who was not allowed to continue her education in Bethlehem University, a university with strong contacts with University College Dublin. Since Mr. Jabarin was Amnesty International’s first international prisoner of conscience from the Palestinian people, we should do what we can to ensure he will be permitted to travel here to receive the award he richly deserves.

Statements on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights - 11th November 2010

2010-12-17T14:20:00.000Z

Statements on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights - 11th November 2010
Senator David Norris: Senator Cassidy’s speech was the most impassioned I have heard him make in the Seanad for some time. It made me wonder if I was on the right side of the House because I do not always agree with him.

I have been approached by various interests in this area and I believe there is a balance of rights to be achieved because there is an entire generation of young people who believe, rightly or wrongly, with or without legal support, they have developed an entitlement to free downloading. That is embedded in our culture. There will be a public relations difficulty in selling whatever agreement is reached and one must be aware of the interests of young people. That is what I would say is the establishment of apparent rights on the ground. The facts are stark. The majority of young people — 675,000 in the space of a year — are engaged in this practice. That is an enormous number of people and therefore this matter must be addressed without alienating an entire section of our community.

On the other hand, the arguments that have been made here are very good. I have been told by a person directly involved in this area that, for example, U2’s first album bombed and without the support of the record industry they would not be in the position they are in now.

Senator Donie Cassidy: That is true.

Senator David Norris: If that first record had been downloaded and deleted, the commercial interests might have said they were no longer interested in it and washed their hands of it. There are a number of situations like that.

A number of artists make their work available freely through the Internet. George Michael made a clear statement on that, as I believe did Sinéad O’Connor. Our business is to function as a Legislature. We are charged with putting laws in place and in doing that, we often get the advice of the courts. In this case a series of legal circumstances have emerged on which a clear series of judgments have been given, in particular in the judgment of Mr. Justice Peter Charleton to which I will refer from time to time in my contribution.

I am grateful to the Minister of State for giving me a copy of his additional remarks. They are somewhat more expansive than is suggested but they are interesting because they relate to the section of his speech that addressed the issue which prompted Senator Cassidy and others to place this matter on the Order which afforded Members this opportunity to engage in statements. I was a little surprised, therefore, that the issues is only dealt with in this short introductory section of the speech. The problem is that although the Minister of State said the European directive has been transposed into Irish law and gave the regulations under which it was transposed, he indicated that where an Internet service provider establishes that it is a mere conduit or carrier of information, it is not liable. Regulation 17 similarly covers caching or temporary storage. Regulation 18 deals similarly with hosting or permanent storage. That is precisely the difficulty Mr. Justice Charleton addressed. The Minister of State went on to say: “However, these regulations do not affect the power of any court to make an order against an ISP [Internet service provider] requiring that [the provider] not infringe or cease infringing any legal right.”

However, there is nothing about the responsibility of the provider in circumstances in which the entity is clearly and knowingly facilitating what Mr. Justice Charleton described in his judgment as theft and piracy.

What has been recommended is the graduated response process. There is a history of negotiation between the music industry and its representatives and the Internet service providers which I will go into. This process is also in operation in France and has been agreed in the Digital Economy Act in the United Kingdom. Finland and New Zealand have already agreed to pursue this route, while Korea has had a graduated response system in operation for some considerable time. The reason I say we must have some response — we cannot leave a lacuna — is that Mr. Justice Charleton identified the problem and indicated in a written judgment that Irish law was deficient. He has indicated that a solution lies in the graduated response approach to which I have referred. However, he is not in a position to enforce this or give injunctive relief because the European directive was, apparently, inefficiently and inadequately transposed into Irish law.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Precisely.

Senator David Norris: Irish law could be brought into alignment with the intention of the European directive through a simple statutory instrument. As long as Irish law is deficient, Mr. Justice Charleton has found that all creative Irish industries are losing money. As things stand, there is a black hole which may lead to yet another situation where taxpayers, although they are not implicated, will be left to pick up the bill. I do not think the general public wish it to be the case that because of a legislative deficiency, the music companies will be able to take legal action which will land the taxpayer with the bill. That would be worrying for everybody, particularly in these difficult economic circumstances.

Mr. Justice Charleton stated: “Legislative intervention is required, if the Oireachtas sees fit, to protect constitutional rights to copyright and foster the national resource of creativity.” One of the problems is with the wording of the regulations to which the Minister referred which do not use the words that appear to be required; that is, they do not make provision for “blocking, diverting and interrupting internet copyright theft”. Because of these three words, we are technically in breach of the European directive.

This comes about because of developments in the technology of recorded music performance and access to it by the public. In particular, there are many new developments that are a little beyond me such as peer-to-peer sharing through iPods. As a person of my generation, I cannot understand why anyone would want several thousand tunes, but then I am not a kind of cultural glutton. If I visit the Louvre, for example, I make sure I do not overindulge and give myself aesthetic indigestion. I head for those one or two rooms in which I can enjoy in a profound way the works of art exhibited. However, I see tourists going through and they visit every room in the place. I do not know how their brains do not explode. They must be insensitive to the arts, but it is very good for tourism.

On a similar basis, I am glad I am not of the iPod generation because I would never willingly sacrifice the thrill and delight of the hunt enjoyed by anyone who is a specialist in musical collections. I was exhilarated for a week when I found an ancient record by the Original Dixieland Jazz Band in Fenning’s record shop on the quays. I used to scour the shops and go through all the boxes. I remember the joy of finding something and the immense joy of listening to my treasure trove when I got home. If one can simply push a button and get 1,500 tunes straightaway from one’s neighbour, much of the joy is gone. However, we cannot hold back technological advances.

I understand young people believe they are entitled to obtain music and this issue must be dealt with. However, the facts were established in the judgment of Mr. Justice Charleton in which he stated: “Between 2005 and 2009 the recording companies experienced a reduction of 40% in the Irish market for the legal sale of recorded music.” That is a devastating blow. I do not know how many industries could tolerate a sudden and spectacular decline of 40% in their market. He went on to state: “Some 675,000 people are likely to be engaged in some form of illegal downloading from time to time.” Does that mean we have 675,000 criminals? I do not think so, although we have 675,000 people who are infringing copyright law. The judgment continued that €20 million in sales was being lost annually. That is a big hole in the budget of the music industry. In a stringent comment, the judge stated:

I am satisfied that the business of the recording companies is being devastated by internet piracy. This not only undermines their business but ruins the ability of a generation of creative people in Ireland, and elsewhere, to establish a viable living. It is destructive of an important native industry.

The reason I contacted people involved in the industry and spoke to Senator Cassidy was that I was particularly concerned by an editorial in support of the music industry’s position by Niall Stokes in Hot Press, a magazine read by many young people. It was an example of courage to address this situation so openly because I doubt his opinion was all that popular with his readers. This is someone who is passionately concerned about the music industry and not, I think, linked with its profits. I know there is not much sympathy for larger players in the music industry; for instance, people say, “To hell with U2 — they make millions and use their tax haven in Amsterdam.” However, when Niall Stokes speaks, he must be listened to.

The court judgment stated the purpose of the directive was “to ensure that injunctive relief should be available in national law despite an exemption applying.” It went on to state: “In failing to provide legislative provision for blocking, diverting and interrupting internet copyright theft, Ireland is not yet fully in compliance with its obligations under European law” and, because of this, “the Court cannot move to provide injunctive relief.” What was the effect of this? There is an irony because, I am told, the effect of the publicity surrounding this judgment was to multiply theft. There has been an increase of more than 30% in such downloads because the public were given the impression that it was perfectly legal. Some 60% of Irish Internet suppliers are either actively supporting or prepared to support the music industry. That leaves 40% which are not.

Discussions have been ongoing and they can be considered in chronological form. The Irish Recorded Music Association, IRMA, wrote to all Internet providers to try to bring them on board by asking them to a meeting, but it found it was impossible to find a date that suited everybody and they could not agree on an agenda; therefore, although they did not actually refuse, they did not come along. They had their own interests. There was a case in Belgium which involved new technology from a firm called Audible Magic to filter illegal material from a network. Based on what had happened up to then — the discussions with the Internet providers, plus this new technology — IRMA brought Eircom to court. The case was heard in January 2009, but a settlement was reached, under which it was agreed that IRMA would find evidence of peer infringement and provide it for Eircom which would engage in the graduated response process. IRMA agreed with Eircom that it would negotiate with other service providers to persuade them to operate the same system and various documentation was exchanged.

As IRMA was unsuccessful in persuading either BT Ireland or UPC to co-operate, there was another case. However, before it got to court, the Data Protection Commissioner intervened and there was a suggestion there could be an infringement of legislative provisions concerning privacy, access to data and so forth. That led to another court case in which the judgment, on 16 April 2009, was again given by Judge Charleton who appears to be an expert in this area. It confirmed that none of the Data Protection Commissioner’s concerns was valid and that the graduated response by Eircom and IRMA complied with data protection legislation. The way was and is clear. There are sensitivities because young people believe they have a right or entitlement and this must be confronted. The fact that there were 675,000 indicates a strong market and the music industry, like the newspapers, will have to develop innovative ways to collect revenue on the Internet.

The Minister referred to European patents, a matter that must be dealt with. European patent seekers are obliged to pay ten times the cost of seeking a patent in the United States because of bureaucracy, translations, having to apply in multiple courts and so forth. That is nonsense. I have been aware of this issue for some time because I visited the Irish community in Munich, including people working with the European Union, about two years ago. There were a number of very talented Irish people among them who were qualified in copyright law and they were pushing within Europe to have the situation cleared up. We must do this.

The Minister raised the question of fair usage, a very grey area in which I got involved with the Joyce estate. I took the advice of the most prominent lawyer in Ireland on copyright and we were able to find our way around it. However, at the time the Government was not always on the ball where these matters were concerned, particularly with regard to literature. I signalled to it some years ago, when the Joyce estate issue was coming down the line, that we would need to look for a derogation, in the way other countries had done. We were moving from protection of copyright for 50 years to 75 years and the Joyce estate which is extremely voracious and threatening in this area moved in and inhibited creative artists from reinterpreting Joyce and scholars from quoting from Joyce’s books in a spirit that defied Joyce’s stated views in the matter. The estate got away with it simply because we did not create the exemption as we could have done. This is an increasingly technical matter. There will be developments all the time, particularly electronically, and we must be prepared for them.

I will be interested to read the Minister’s response; unfortunately, I cannot stay to hear it. It is a balancing act. This is the Legislature and we are charged with implementing the law. It is clear that there is a defect in it which has been drawn to our attention by the courts and it is our responsibility to ensure this deficiency is remedied. At the same time, we must be conscious of the fact that an entire generation has become accustomed to this and the music industry must be flexible and generous. It must keep its customers with it or, at least, try to transform the freeloaders — we all like to freeload if we can — into customers. They should not be denied access to the music they love, but, at the same time, we must ensure the creative artists and the industry get their just and proportionate reward.

Order of Business - 11th November 2010

2010-12-17T14:17:00.000Z

Order of Business - 11th November 2010
Senator David Norris: I support what Senator Boyle said. It would be very useful to have a regular debate on the economy, for which I have been calling for some time. It would be a statutory item held at least every week. Apart from everything else, it would mean we could have these ideas discussed in a relatively unhurried manner rather than absorbing the Order of Business every day. It is the principal thing item discussed; nothing else is placed on the agenda. Of course, it is worrying. Few of us thought we would see the interest rate on bonds going above 9% and apparently it is still climbing.

I agree with some of Senator Leyden’s comments. I heard some of the broadcast from New York and some of the comments made were factually inaccurate such as that the State would run out of money within one month. That is simply not the case, but it will cause concern in the market. We must be as open as possible and use these economic debates. I have been in contact for a number of years with Mr. Peter Mathews who has an almost obsessional interest, as we all have probably, in the economy. His figures have consistently been right. In a telephone conversation with him this morning he told me that in September alone €55 billion was redeemed by the banks in bonds, in a fairly surreptitious movement, with loans from the ECB. There was no discussion of this in either House of the Oireachtas. I raised the matter a couple of weeks ago when Anglo Irish Bank redeemed €7.9 billion. I believe every penny put into Anglo Irish Bank is a complete waste time. However, I agree with Senator Boyle that it is important to have reasoned debate on a regular basis on the economy. We might come up with some ideas. Senator O’Toole has had a number of extremely useful ideas, particularly about the relevance of the metro north project. If it is costed on a basis where we find value, it might well turn out to be sustainable. These are the issues we should be discussing in such debates in order that other issues can be addressed during the valuable time made available on the Order of Business.

Order of Business - 10th November 2010

2010-12-17T14:15:00.000Z

Order of Business - 10th November 2010
Senator David Norris: I join Senators O’Toole, Coghlan, Cummins and Buttimer in suggesting that now is the time for us to commemorate the Irish people who died in the First World War. It is a pity that so far no one from the other side has said anything on this issue. Perhaps before the Order of Business is concluded we will have some support.

Emblems such as the poppy are sometimes contentious. For that reason, wisely, all emblems are excluded from this House. The former Deputy Paddy Harte has provided me with copies of the poppies he has had produced with a shamrock in the middle to emphasise the fact that they are commemorating Irish people. There is, indeed, one for everyone in the audience because I have a supply of them in the office if anyone wants to wear them outside the Chamber. I remember, on the day of the Enniskillen bombing when Senator John Robb came from the back row and presented the then Cathaoirleach, Charlie McDonald, with a poppy, which, in a gesture of extraordinary reconciliation, he put in his lapel and wore for the day. I believe this matter should be looked at.

Can the Leader tell the House when my colleague, Senator Feargal Quinn’s Construction Contracts Bill will be taken? It is important we address this matter, especially in light of the High Court judgment placing two companies, Pierse Construction and Pierse Building Services, in liquidation. They had 2,000 to 3,000 subcontractors employed, and some of these are also facing difficulties and, possibly, liquidation.

We learned last week about hundreds of millions of unspent money washing around in the Department of Education and Skills. Wexford County Council has decided to use public moneys to complete certain projects that are of importance to the community. In this situation, where there are small sub-contractors who, through no fault of their own, face the prospect of receivership or liquidation and putting their workers on the dole, we should ask the Government to release that €300 million immediately and frontload the payments, if necessary, for accounting purposes in order that construction workers can continue to be employed, small firms do not go out of business and school projects are completed. I commend Senator Quinn on addressing this subject in the important way that he did.

Private Members Motion on the National Housing Development Survey - 10th November 2010

2010-12-17T14:14:00.003Z

Private Members Motion on the National Housing Development Survey - Motion
- 10 November 2010
Senator David Norris: Far be it from me to be contentious, but I completely disagree with my good friend and colleague, Senator Dearey. The motion gets straight and clearly to the point and I am very disappointed the Government should propose to amend it in this completely fatuous way. The Labour Party motion contains three elements. The first is that “many completed houses are unoccupied despite a huge demand for social and affordable housing”, which is a clearly established fact. On the other hand one needs to be sensitive in these areas because it is not possible simply to take into State ownership willy-nilly housing estates that are incomplete as this might simply concentrate disadvantage in one particular area. It was tried in Dublin and was a big mistake. It is a rather more sophisticated problem than simply suggesting matching one with the other. However, at the same time the facts are established and quite clear, and the first part of the motion is right.
The next part of the motion states that “many estates are still lacking completed roads, pathways and open spaces”, which the Government accepts. It is true and there is no argument about that either. The final part states that “there is no clarity around who will pay to compete unfinished estates”, which is also true. Nobody knows and no mechanism has been put in place for that to happen although everyone wants it to happen and it is recommended by Focus Ireland and the auctioneers’ association.
Senator Mark Dearey: These issues are being addressed.
An Cathaoirleach: No interruptions, please
Senator David Norris: However, they have not yet been addressed and the Labour Party motion outlines the current factual position. It would be much better for both sides to agree rather than this appalling business whereby we are still in the middle of this crisis playing at logic chopping and political partisan point scoring. There is nothing in the Labour Party motion that could not have the words of the amendment in the name of Senator Cassidy attached to it in order to create a composite motion. I see no problem with the Government’s amendment because it is so pathetically weak. It notes this and that, welcomes the potential to do something else, and commends the intention and the potential role of other things. It is all pie in the sky and would not detract from the Labour Party motion. If the Government wants the respect of the people it should stop playing this stupid game of party politics and agree a composite motion. We can then get together to address this serious problem facing the country.
I commend Senator McFadden on proposing that there should be social housing for single men, which has long been a problem. We should be able to solve at least some of it using this housing stock especially given that, as any person with any contact with the market will say and as covered on a radio programme over the weekend, people will not buy one-bedroom apartments. Some tricksters of property developers, who are now appropriately in trouble, specialise in building one-bedroom units. They brought in a transient population because nobody wants to stay in them or have a family in them. Nobody will develop a relationship with a community living in a one-bedroom apartment. On the other hand, single people, particularly single men, might well be grateful to get them.
I know there is a kind of antagonism to the phrase “ghost estates”. I see the Minister of State, Deputy Cuffe, nodding and perhaps he will say something about this. The problem is that we are lumbered with the phrase in the same way that we are lumbered with phrases such as “boy racers” and “free fees”, which is an oxymoron. They may be inappropriate and ugly, but they are there and people use them so we need to work with it. These estates are in different states of completion or non-completion, but there is no point in railing against the idea of calling them ghost estates. It may not be an exactly accurate scientific description, but it is there.
There is a question as to whether it might be better to demolish some of them and perhaps a partial demolition might be appropriate because of the decay. First, it is very depressing for people to have bought a house and see a large section — one third or even half an estate — decaying around them. It is also unsanitary with infestations of vermin such as rats, children exposed to danger because they will break into it, and the danger of fire; I need not go on. We need to consider whether on balance it would be better to complete or pull down and at least remove some of the visible aspects of blight.
The scale of the problem is significant. I am happy to commend the Government on establishing the national survey, which at least gives us fairly stark facts to deal with. There are 43,000 empty or unfinished units in 34 local authority areas. The Cork County Council area has by far the largest number of ghost estates — I apologise for using that term, but it is in the briefing I have — with 284 unfinished or substantially vacant developments. It is followed by Wexford with 180, Fingal and Kerry with 152 each, 147 in Cavan and 104 in Louth. Much of this follows the pattern of areas with defective planning permissions granted. In the number of planning permissions overturned on appeal, Donegal was the worst and it was also among the worst in terms of the developments. In Donegal, 60% of planning permissions were overturned and Cavan had nearly 40%. Those are astonishing figures, which reflect a dangerous practice in that they considered only their own selfish parochial or party interest in their planning decisions. I commend the Green Party on having a useful impact on Government in tidying up some of these planning aspects, but we were left with the historical detritus of it. Some 2,846 developments were inspected and only 429, 15%, were active. Some 78,195 dwellings were complete and occupied.
A total of 23,250 dwellings were complete and vacant, 9,976 dwellings were near complete and 9,854 dwellings were at various early stages of construction activity. These are very serious figures.
I wish to return to a matter I raised on the Order of Business about school construction. A serious situation has been caused by the collapse of Pierse Contracting and Pierse Building Services which has left between 2,000 and 3,000 smaller sub-contractors in the lurch. There is money in the Department of Education and Skills which should be used to complete these contracts, as Wexford County Council has decided to do with a half-abandoned Pierse construction site in Wexford. Why not reactivate the National Building Agency? Using the evidence from this survey the Minister, could decide whether it is appropriate to use the National Building Agency or something similar to employ many of the unemployed building workers to complete those housing estates which appear to have a prospect of being sold or which would have some socially beneficial use.
At the beginning of this financial crisis I suggested, although no one took any notice, that we should consider the possibility of establishing a Department for home security, not homeland security, which would try to secure people in their homes in the context of defaulting on mortgages and so forth. When we have this blight of ghost estates, difficulty in the construction industry and queues and backlogs in waiting lists for social housing, the idea of creating a Department with that specific focus should be examined again.

Order of Business - 10th November 2010

2010-12-17T14:10:00.001Z

Order of Business - 9th November 2010

2010-12-10T12:49:00.000Z

Order of Business - 9th November 2010
Senator David Norris: Commissioner Rehn is in Dublin and he is welcome. I wish him and the Government well on their discussions but I regret that he was unable to meet representatives of the marginalised and vulnerable. I refer in particular to Social Justice Ireland. It was said he would not meet any representatives of the community and voluntary pillar. I hope the Government tells Mr. Rehn that its responsibility is primarily towards the people of Ireland and Irish society rather than protecting property speculators, delinquent bankers and international financial institutions from the consequences of their gambling instincts and unwise decisions. I make this point in the context of an article on the same front page of The Irish Times which indicated that an 81-year-old woman perished in a fire after her electricity had been cut off. I must emphasise that this was not cut off by the ESB but by her son-in-law, who had just lost his job and was transferring the bill to his wife’s name. We must retain the human element. In that context, I welcome the publication by the Irish Human Rights Commission of an interim or partial report on the situation regarding the Magdalen Laundries. From this it appears very clear that the State and some of the religious orders have questions to answer. In particular, questions arise about official State records being incomplete or unavailable, the existence of records in the possession of religious orders, which should be made public, and the fact that a latter was sent to a Deputy in response to a question on 4 September 2009 by the Minister for Education and Science stating that the State did not refer individuals nor was it complicit in referring individuals to the laundries. That is clearly incorrect. Enough questions were raised by the Irish Human Rights Commission for us as part of the Oireachtas to require that a statutory commission is established. This also should include the Bethany Home, which the Church of Ireland archbishop has said should be included in the redress system.

Order of Business - 4th November 2010

2010-12-10T12:46:00.001Z

Order of Business - 4th November 2010
Senator David Norris: I wish to seek a debate on education, not just in light of yesterday’s events — some aspects of which were deplorable — but also that at least €26 million in the building fund for schools remains unspent.

Senator Joe O’Toole: It is actually €300 million.

Senator David Norris: I apologise for getting the figure wrong. This means that there is €300 million left to be spent with only eight weeks remaining in the current year. I visited the community school in Kinsale, County Cork, earlier in the week where I met the headmaster and his students. It is a remarkable and splendid school but conditions there are cramped. The school is on the list for an additional building. Why are schools such as this, which have fine staff and splendid students, not having their needs addressed, particularly at a time when €300 million in funding is going to disappear back into the Department of Finance? What is happening represents a real dereliction of duty. One of the reasons provided in respect of why €300 million still remains in the fund to which I refer is that building costs have dropped. Members on all sides of the House have highlighted the latter fact on numerous occasions and stated that, for this reason, there should be an intensive building programme which would lead to the creation of further employment.

Senator Pearse Doherty: Hear, hear.

Senator David Norris: I also wish to raise the matter of copyright in the music industry. I have been in contact with the editor of Hot Press magazine and Mr. Paul McGuinness and I indicated that I was interested in pursuing this issue in a serious fashion. I received misleading information to the effect that the Leader was going to raise this matter yesterday. I checked the position and discovered that this was not true. I have now received a letter inquiring whether I am genuinely interested in the matter because the Leader is going to raise the matter today. I did not receive any indication that this was going to happen. Will the Leader clarify the position in respect of this matter? It is very difficult for people such as me who try to take the work of the Seanad seriously and who try to pursue issues such as music copyright which have a major impact on the music industry and artists. It is very frustrating if the impression is given that matters are being raised when, apparently, action is not being taken.

Private Members Motion on Seanad Reform - 3rd November 2010

2010-12-10T12:45:00.000Z

Private Members Motion on Seanad Reform - 3rd November 2010
Senator David Norris: I compliment my colleagues on the Independent benches on tabling the motion. I have listened to the entire debate up to now and I am of the view that not one new idea has been brought forward. A number of interesting ideas have been propounded but not a single new one has been offered. I challenge colleagues to demonstrate that I am incorrect in this regard.

There has, however, been one interesting and welcome development, namely, the statement by Senator O’Malley to the effect that she proposes to cross the floor of the House and vote with the Independents. The Senator has displayed a remarkable and courageous attitude. However, she could not have received a more seductive invitation to cross the floor than that offered in the weak, vapid and inane amendment placed on the Supplementary Order Paper by Senator Cassidy whose name is unaccompanied by any of those of his party colleagues which may perhaps reflect their embarrassment regarding the amendment.

I wish to consider amendment No. 1 in detail. As usual, it proposes to delete all words after “Seanad Éireann” and then states the House “notes”, which means nothing at all will be done. It notes the deliberations which took place on various proposals, the lack of adequate consensus, the absence of such a consensus, the commitment contained in the renewed programme for Government and blah, blah, blah. It then resolves to request the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to blah, blah, blah.

I have been through all of this before and have campaigned on the issue of Seanad reform for 30 years. It is nearly a quarter of a century since I was elected to the House. One of the platforms on which I was first elected was reform of the Seanad. I assure Members nothing has happened during the entire period to which I refer. Not one scrap or iota of Seanad reform has been introduced. I accept there has perhaps been some minor and ineffective tinkering at the edges of the Order of Business, but there has been absolutely nothing else. On my first day as a Senator I tabled a motion in which I welcomed and suggested the implementation of the recommendations of the all-party committee. Those on the Government side voted down the recommendations to which I refer and which had been brought forward by a committee established by the then Government. That will inform Members as to the degree of movement they can expect on this issue.

I was later appointed to and sat on the all-party group on Seanad reform chaired by the current Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley. The Minister of State has indicated that not everyone agreed that we should proceed with just reforming the university constituency. That proposal was made and I am absolutely unapologetic. The notion that we should tackle the position on the university seats first has often been brought forward. I respectfully demur from what Senator O’Toole stated. There may perhaps have been a slight blurring in the language he used and he may not entirely have meant what he said. However, I make no apology whatever for being a member of the only democratic element in the House. University Senators do have constituencies, of 65,000 and 110,000. Senator Dearey made a most engaging contribution and was humble in a way to which I could only aspire. However, he was elected by the votes of only 237 people. I find it difficult to take lessons from an apparatus which produces elections in which candidates need only 237 votes when people such as Senator O’Toole and I are required to attract the votes of tens of thousands of individuals. I apologise if what I am saying appears to be arrogant in nature, but it is also a fact.

Having dealt with the amendment, I wish to proceed to the Minister of State’s contribution. She stated “I am pleased to set out the Government’s position on the matters in question.” Where have we heard that before? We hear it every night on radio and television when people state “I am glad you asked me that question,” which in reality means they are not glad at all and are going to provide a completely wooly response. That is, of course, what happens. The Minister of State also referred to the all-party group on Seanad reform chaired by the Minister, Deputy Gormley, but stated “a number of detailed issues must be addressed with regard to implementing possible changes in this area.” Translation: one should not hold one’s breath because nothing is going to happen.

The Minister of State then began to wander around various areas of the Constitution, stating an enabling amendment would be required, that the higher education constituency would have to be expanded, etc. I absolutely applaud and support the latter. However, it must be managed efficiently and properly and reflect the interests not only of Seanad Éireann but also those of voters.

I stated not one new idea had been expounded during the debate. However, Senator O’Toole did bring forward a fairly new idea — it represents the most valuable suggestion made during the entire debate — namely, the creation of a hybrid method of election in respect of the panel system. He suggested some element of contact with local authorities could be retained but that the other sections of the panels could be broadened to encompass universal suffrage. That is the way to proceed because it would make Seanad Éireann truly representative.

The Minister of State referred to the commitment to establish an independent electoral commission. It is just that — a commitment. I once heard a very decent Leader of the House, former Senator Mick Lanigan, give a commitment to Senator O’Toole which he then failed to honour. The Senator will confirm that Mr. Lanigan accepted that he had given a commitment but that it was not binding. We know, therefore, how much commitments are worth. The electoral commission is not even in existence but Ministers are relying on it to defend their position.

The Minister of State made a number of interesting comments. For example, she referred to “making recommendations on the feasibility of extending the franchise for Presidential elections to the Irish abroad,” to which I say, “Hear, hear.” However, the franchise should not just be extended to the Irish abroad, it should also be extended to the Irish on this island. People who are citizens of the Irish Republic and live north of the Border are prohibited from voting in Presidential elections. Members are probably asking why I am referring to the Presidential election. I am doing so because I am interested in it and my hat is in the ring. If anyone did not know that, they do now.

Since we have wandered into this area and given that we are discussing democracy, a recent poll carried out by MillwardBrown Lansdowne indicates that my level of support among members of the public is greater than that of the next two candidates put together. However, I may never be able to enter the contest for the Presidency because the political parties control the mechanism of election. In order to stand, I would require the support of either 20 Members of the Oireachtas or at least four county or city councils. If the political parties believe in democracy, they should take steps to prove it by removing the rigid application of the Whip in order to allow councillors to make an independent determination in this matter.

The Minister of State has referred to whether we are content to have the House viewed as some sort of debating society. I am all in favour of such societies. However, the Minister of State displayed some cheek when she said the House really was a debating society and asked whether it could play a more meaningful role. We could if the Government produced legislation. There are more than a dozen items of legislation from this side of the House; every single one of my Independent colleagues has placed legislation before the House. That takes work, determination and expertise.

I respectfully disagree with Senator Alex White who said we should reduce the time involved. That would be the death of the Seanad. If we were to reduce it further, we would be a total laughing stock. The work we do does not just take place in the Chamber. Colleagues on both sides of the House work 14 to 18 hours a day and I do not want to work for nothing. I want decent, modest recompense. I want my work to be recognised, not just financially. I want people to know about it because I sometimes leave here at midnight. On my way home I hear repeats of programmes in which radio broadcasters say the Seanad does a day and a half’s work in the few weeks it meets. Lots of us work hard in this place and we deserve respect.

Senator Donie Cassidy: I want to inject balance into this debate because there seem to be a few inaccuracies. I have had the unique distinction of serving in both Houses. It is a marvellous experience and a wonderful privilege.

Senator David Norris: There are one or two others who have done so.

Senator Donie Cassidy: I do not see anything wrong with colleagues serving in either House and going on to become a member of the Cabinet or the President of Ireland as has happened.

Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.

Senator Donie Cassidy: People have moved on from this House to become Taoiseach, the first lady Tánaiste and the first lady leader of a party. There are members of the Cabinet who served in this House where they gained tremendous experience. Being a member of the Upper House is a privilege and gives one experience such that when one serves in the Dáil one is at a distinct advantage on one’s first day in office or as a Member of the Dáil.

Senator David Norris: On a point of clarification, I ask the Acting Chairman to ask the Senator to name the first lady leader of a party.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Yes, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney.

Senator David Norris: Of the Senator’s party.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Of Fianna Fáil.

Senator David Norris: Of Fianna Fáil

Senator Donie Cassidy: Yes, of course. It was in 1977 and the Taoiseach of the day was Jack Lynch.

Senator David Norris: She was leader of the party. I did not realise that.

Order of Business - 3rd November 2010

2010-12-10T12:41:00.001Z

Order of Business - 3rd November 2010
Senator David Norris: I congratulate my colleague, Senator Pearse Doherty, who I understand has won his action and that this will precipitate a by-election. I hope it also precipitates a general election which this country needs.

I agree with Senator Mooney that there will be 15,000 to 20,000 young people outside the gates of the House today and I congratulate them on their organisation. I believe in a free universally accessible education system just as I believe in a free universally accessible health system. However, my heart goes out to the young people I heard on radio this morning who are motivated to go to university but whose parents had never been and are not well paid. Now they realise they will not get there. I feel bad for them because they will now be caught in a pincer movement being deprived of a third level education at a time when the jobs market is contracting.

There is much dishonesty in this House. Free fees is an ugly, stupid phrase and it is an oxymoron. It was a cruel and cynical political deception and it never existed. One either pays fees or gets a free education. One cannot have it both ways. That might be an unpalatable truth but I have had regular meetings over the past five to ten years with student leaders and I have told them this because I knew where the real battle was. The real battle will be to concentrate resources on young people like the ones I heard on radio this morning.

Currently, it costs €1,500 to register. Is that a fee or not? It is certainly paid and it will go up to €3,000. The Green Party has moderated its position and apparently will accept €2,500. I met the students in UCD where it costs €4,500 for student accommodation for those coming from the country. They must also pay for subsistence and books. One is then very quickly reaching €12,000 or €15,000. How will people with one parent working or parents out of work be able to pay?

I share the concern of others about our smart economy and educated young people. I spoke at the Institute of European Affairs last week. There was a young woman there who was in a class of 200 two years ago which is down to 12 this year. That is what is happening to our education system.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has made the point. He can raise it in the debate.

Senator David Norris: I am glad there will be a general election very soon.