David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Thank you very much. I would not have been in the position to join in the slurpfest that greeted the Taoiseach. I would have felt a moral obligation to strike a discordant note because that is what Independents are for. They have to ask the awkward questions. We have won the referendum, but we have a huge job in front of us. That is illustrated for us today because I did not agree with everything in the Quinn-Zappone Bill. I only saw it the day that it was presented, and the same thing happened with Senator Crown's Bill. I was asked to second the Bill five minutes before the debate began and I was delighted to do so, but I do not agree with everything in these Bills. For example, I do not agree with the gathering rush towards the general overview of European legislation. That cannot be accomplished without a bureaucratic support and perhaps people do not realise there is a huge volume of stuff that comes out.

Today, we are taking a rake of stuff, some of it from the European Commission, without debate. Are we serious, if we are going to allow this very significant amount of material through without debate because that would be too troublesome and cumbersome? These are only two or three instruments. What if there are a couple of hundred? We must look at this.

I also do not agree with half pay. Half pay is essential in the Army where if one is reduced in rank, one is given half pay. I do not agree, unless somebody produces argument, not sentiment. I know it is very popular, and that some people have said we should work for nothing. That will create a real aristocracy of the elite. It is remarkable that at least two Members of this House came from the unemployment register to play distinguished roles in the House. I doubt that they could have done that if they got nothing. Suggesting we are worth nothing means we might as well have abolished ourselves. Quite a lot must be teased out and we must do it straight away.

I also do not agree with 50% women; I do not agree with 50% for anything. I want the best. I supported the Electoral (Amendment) Act because it provided that at least 30% of the party candidates should be women, but the people should have the choice. We cannot choose for them. I do not know how it would apply to the university seats if they were to be split up, for example. I suppose I could play both sides against the middle and be regarded as a kind of honorary joker, so I could go in with either side.

The other issue is the tax. This is a serious matter. The Revenue Commissioners have made a total bags of it. One is presented with options, but they are not equal because if the person selects one, which might be the only possible one for the person, or one of two, the person is penalised. It is a violation of natural justice to ask people to pay for something before the debt is incurred. That is just plain wrong and it should be resolved.

My final point, which I will try to raise as a matter on the Adjournment, is related to this. The Revenue Commissioners decided two years ago in 2011 not to issue receipts. One can get an online, unsigned acknowledgement, but how will that hold up in a court of law? If people wish to sell the house 30 or 40 years later, they cannot do so without the tax receipts but they do not have them. That is a major error. There should be something provided, but I will raise it as a matter on the Adjournment.