David Norris (Independent)

I raised the question of the redress board when the issue of fees first became public knowledge a week or two ago. I listened with interest to the spokesperson of the Law Society. He was very disingenuous as he gave the impression that this is a rare occurrence and is limited to a few cases involving the board. That is not the situation. The principle exists throughout the legal profession and I will give one example. Legal firms frequently draw a distinction between what they call solicitor and client costs on the one hand and court-awarded costs. They abstract the difference. This means the legal firms second-guess what the court believes is the appropriate fee to be paid and they charge their individual clients a greater amount. This is endemic throughout the legal profession and needs to be examined.

I ask for a debate as soon as possible, within the next week, on the proposed metro for Dublin. The Leader played a very significant role in this area, both as Minister for Public Enterprise and in facilitating debate. I understand that a major investment programme in transport infrastructure will be announced in the next week or two. It is very important for us to debate it now and give the matter a very vigorous push to ensure that at least the initial phase of investment in the only system that will really address the traffic issue in Dublin is implemented.

I ask the Leader to ascertain from the relevant Minister why we have not ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. I attended a Law Society conference on Saturday at which the United Nations chairperson of the committee dealing with the issue, Prasad Kariyawasam, said it was extraordinary that of all the states that had promoted the convention, none of the labour receiving states, including Ireland, which supported it, has signed or ratified it. We are entitled to an answer as to why the convention has not been ratified. I have tried to raise a matter many times in the House, namely the appalling decision by An Bord Pleanála to grant retention to a sawmill development at Leap Castle. Every time I tried to raise this matter I was stymied because I was informed the case was sub judice and this, that and the other. A landmark decision has been given by An Bord Pleanála which undermines the whole credibility of the planning process. Just like the northside planning permissions, it is a case of doing what one wants, using one's influence, pleading an employment factor and breaking the guarantees given under the terms of the Environmental Protection Agency. Dangerous substances such as chromium 6 are used, the air is polluted, extensive visual damage is created and the reward is this decision by An Bord Pleanála.