David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I echo what my colleagues said. Like them, I am filled with admiration for the work our guests do. Professor McMaster seems to be of the view that being angry is inappropriate. Anger is a highly appropriate emotion, but it depends on how one directs one's anger. Professor McMaster does not come across as being angry, although I accept that there may be a touch of Swiftian saeva indignatio about him. Both of our guests come across as being extraordinarily balanced, rational and level headed.

The name Médecins Sans Frontières says it all. Our guests referred to access. If there is any way the committee can assist on a diplomatic level, I am sure it will do so. We will make that one of our primary points in our communications with the Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, who will take a leading role when Ireland holds the Presidency of the European Union in the new year. We should place particular emphasis on the need for access.

I am struck by the fact that Médecins Sans Frontières uses inflatable operating theatres. I was not aware of that fact. Professor McMaster described working in a cave which was dusty and difficult to access but in which was to be found a perfectly functioning hospital. I presume the use of inflatable operating theatres allows the organisation to respond quickly and in awkward situations.

I wish to ask a number of questions, some of which have been posed, but I am not sure that they were answered. Médecins Sans Frontières has adopted the admirable position of not being political; it maintains a disconnection - or disinfection - from political aspects in so far as that is possible, and is neutral, etc. Does this permit it to make records of violations of international and human rights protocols and compile lists relating to the use of prohibited or illegal munitions such as white phosphorus, cluster bombs, flechettes and other examples of the machinery of war, or is the organisation of the view that doing so would involve straying into political territory? From my point of view, information in this regard would be highly useful. Some of my colleagues referred briefly to the possibility of chemical warfare occurring. I understand a strong political warning has been issued by the European Union and the United States to the effect that there will be certain unspecified consequences if chemical weapons are used. It has been stated Scud missiles are already being used. I think some may have been fired at the city to which Ms McKenna referred and the population of which has been reduced from 300,000 to 50,000. That must be appalling. Given that the targeting systems for Scud missiles are so imprecise - at least they were in the past, but they may have improved enormously since we last came across them - I presume the intention behind their use is for them to have a psychological impact rather than anything else.

I was very impressed to read the information supplied on a particular family. There were two women and a small baby involved. The women were hysterical and the child had shrapnel wounds which appeared to be superficial and certainly not life-threatening. What caused the women to be so upset was the helicopters hovering overhead and dropping devices containing shrapnel.

I wish to pose a couple of questions which are political in nature and intended to elicit answers in respect of how we can help. I suggest we push the idea of access which appears to lie at the heart of the ethos of Médecins Sans Frontières. It also appears to be at the core of the practical difficulties the organisation is encountering in Syria. Is it in a position to advise the committee or the world at large on the use of prohibited weapons, particularly chemical weapons, or is it obliged to avert its gaze from such matters?