Item No. 1, motion to rescind resolution of the House of 15 March 1990. Senator Lanigan, Leader of the House, to move.
Rescinding of Resolution: Motion.
By special leave of the House, I wish that item No. 1 be taken before the Order of Business. In order to avoid an unnecessary confrontation with the courts and perhaps precipitate a constitutional crisis I move item No. 1:
That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders relative to Public Business, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges recommends that the resolution of the House of 15th March, 1990, adopting its Report (T.279) and its recommendation therein be rescinded.
The intention is that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will examine tomorrow the kind of forum under which the allegations made by Senator Norris may be investigated conclusively, either by a committee or sub-committee of the House which will guarantee that the courts will have no role in that process afterwards.
In view of the sensitive nature of the situation, vis-á-vis the courts, I suggest that this item be taken without debate. This matter will come up when the appropriate committee reports to the House and the House can have an opportunity for full debate. I am open to suggestions from the House on this matter.
I cannot accept the suggestion of the Leader of the House that this be taken without debate, although my contribution will be brief. We will be supporting the proposal to rescind the suspension imposed last Thursday. I would like to say at the outset, and make it very clear, that this is not being done because of last Friday's High Court order. I believe that the constitution guarantees the right of the Houses of the Oireachtas to order our own affairs. This is a right which I, and I believe everybody else here, would guard and defend very jealously indeed. I know that some constitutional experts differ on this point but, as a parliamentarian, I am very clear as to where my loyalty and responsibility would lie should this question be put to the test and, under different circumstances, I would certainly have challenged last Friday's court order. I want to be very clear on this point.
I also want to be equally clear why I support this proposal to rescind last Thursday's decision. The reason is that when I and other members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges voted last Thursday, we did not have available to us a legal opinion from an eminent senior counsel who was briefed by the Chief State Solicitor's Office and whose briefing note made clear that he was to advise the committee, and whose own understanding was that he was engaged to advise the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. That opinion points out very clearly to us that our procedures were defective and indicated equally clearly how these defects could be remedied. Had that opinion been available last week the report would not have been sustained. I have no doubt whatsoever about that. Even though the conclusions of last week's report that there had been a grave breach of privilege might have been sustained eventually, the report itself and the procedures could not be sustained.
I cannot hide my very deep sense of personal anger over this matter. I want the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to establish, as a matter of urgency, just why this opinion was withheld from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Unless we can be fully satisfied on this matter our confidence in the Cathaoirleach will have been irretrievably damaged and we will be obliged to act accordingly. I want this matter examined as a matter of great urgency. I want the Leader of the House to assure us that there will be a full report and action, if such is necessary, at the earliest possible opportunity.
We have discussed this matter over and back over the last month or so and in the intervening period we have lost a number of people from these benches. We have two people missing at this moment, people who, through the course of the debate and argument, were excluded from the House.
The position is as outlined by Senator Manning and as I took the trouble to outline to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on many occasions over the last month, and as I outlined in the debate here last Thursday morning. I want to disagree fundamentally with what Senator Manning has said. I see no contradiction whatsoever between the court's decision and the constitutional functions of this House. To me it is quite open and clear-cut.
The Constitution makes it quite clear that any Member of the House is amenable only to the House itself for utterances made in the House. It is very clear. It goes on further to say that the House shall make its own arrangements for penalising people who are in breach of said privileges. What is in question here is the procedure which the House set up in order to discharge its constitutional function. There is no threat to the House's work or the function of the House, it is simply to prove that "nobody is above the law" and in this case neither are the Houses of Parliament in the way they go about their business.
It is now quite clear, as I attempted to convince the committee over the last month, that the fundamental problem with the committee in investigating the allegations was that the rôle of the Cathaoirleach as judge in his own case was unacceptable. It seems extraordinary that that information, which was by way of written opinion from senior counsel, was not made available to the committee.
I have asked that tomorrow morning's meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges establish, as a matter of urgency, why it was that the information was not made available. That is being discussed. I reserve my right to make other demands or proposals arising from that investigation. It is disgraceful that one of my colleagues, Senator Brendan Ryan, who was excluded from this House last week on the basis that he was fighting what he perceived to be an injustice in this case——
That has no relevance whatsoever to the motion before us.
It has.
It has not.
It has grave relevance to this group, that on the issue the Senator was discussing he was excluded from the House.
I have to remind the Senator that it has no relevance to the matter before the House.
I do not intend to get involved with the Cathaoirleach in any sideshow on this, so I will not pursue that point any further. The constitutionality of the legislation passed in this House last Thursday afternoon, following the incorrect suspension of a Member, is also questionable. I have asked that that matter be considered, particularly when the Members had amendments down to that legislation. It has been an unhappy month. I look forward to the investigation of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges into why this information did not reach us. When that report comes back to the House I will have further to say.
The Leader of the House has made it quite clear to us that the allegations made by Senator Norris in the House, to which the Leader took exception, will now be investigated by a newly set up committee. From our side of the House, we see any such investigation to be simply structured as follows: both sides of the argument equally represented and an independent person in the middle. It is a very simple, fair, well established, well tried and well accepted judicial practice. That is where we will be going.
I support the motion, I regret that two of my colleagues are not here to debate it and contribute to it. I hope the explanations which will be given to us on this matter may clear the air but I think not.
The Labour Party will be supporting item No. 1 on today's Order Paper. Last week we advised the House against pressing this business to a vote. When the vote came we voted against the exclusion of Senator Norris for a week on the basis that we were unhappy with the way the business was being conducted. We were unhappy that it was not being conducted in a manner which would be in accord with basic principles of justice.
It is now clear that advice was available, advice which was in broad accord with our view last week. I will be looking for clarification and an explanation as to why that advice was not made available to the House and why it was not acted upon. In the meantime we will reserve our position.
I might observe at the outset that if I had gone to Nicaragua this House would have been saved much embarrassment. Let that be a lesson for the future.
A Senator
On a point of order, I ask the Senator to withdraw that remark.
Senator Murphy to continue.
Secondly, I want to make the point that whatever Senator Manning might think about recourse to the High Court and how regrettable that was, nonetheless Senator Norris had recourse to the High Court because of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of these proceedings since the inception of the present Seanad. The meaning of the High Court decision, it seems to me, is that Senator Norris should be restored instantly to the proceedings of this House, that he should not have to await the outcome of this motion. I also share the concern over the news reports — they are all that I have to go on — that a significant piece of advice was withheld from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The House is entitled to a statement from you, a Chathaoirligh, now, on that matter. I will not conceal my view on this matter. Because of everything that has happened, the Independent Senators are justified in putting down the motion which they have just done which in fact calls for your resignation.
Last week we asked for a delay in the suspension of Senator Norris specifically because a judicial review was being sought by him. The Leader of the House stated that he would not be bulldozed by the courts. Today, we have a different attitude in which we are talking about our sensitivity to the courts. I am very glad that that particular issue has been tackled.
The first thing I should say is that it would have been far better if the House and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges had been less hasty. I should remind those in the House who do not know, that before the meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges at which it was decided to suspend Senator Norris, Senator Norris wrote them a letter asking them to withhold their proceedings because he was seeking a judicial review. That was either ignored or dismissed. If it had not been, we would not be in the situation we are now in.
It seems to me that prima facie if anybody at that committee had knowledge of or had an opinion from a senior counsel or the State Solicitor's office at that time about what the likely outcome of such recourse to the courts would be, they were guilty of an unforgivable dereliction of duty for not revealing it to the committee at that time. That is why I have put down, along with other members of the Independent group, under Standing Order 7 a call for your removal from office. However, that does not go onto the Order Paper until next week. It is certainly open to us to withdraw that if a satisfactory explanation is given to the House. I ask you that now, tomorrow morning, or at a very early time, explain to this House why the information which apparently, according to the report in the newspapers, you then possessed, was not revealed at the time.
The Progressive Democrats will be supporting this motion as well. I would like to express our very deep sense of dissatisfaction over the way this matter has been handled by all parties involved. It is extremely worrying and a deep concern that the office of the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad should be undermined in such a way. It is also a great worry to us that the Cathaoirleach should be implicated in that undermining. From our point of view we want to see this matter cleared up as quickly as possible.
I believe that the Procedure and Privileges of the Oireachtas are sacrosanct. It is sad that there has to be recourse to outside areas to deal with matters that I believe should be handled within the confines of where we stand today. There is a deep sense of dissatisfaction at the way the matter has evolved. We want to see it cleaned up, we want to see it cleared up and we want to see confidence restored in the position that we are discussing here today, which is the position of the Cathaoirleach in this Seanad.
I support the motion before us today. In fairness, we cannot lose sight of the fact that Senator Norris has not substantiated the charge that was made against you. This matter, of course, will be discussed further. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the suspension was a correct one. In so far as you are concerned it has to be pointed out that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges gave you full and total approval to investigate the allegations. Standing Order No. 69 was debated many times. It clearly sets out your role in this matter, that you should chair all meetings of Seanad sub-committees——
On a point of order, which I am sure the Senator will accept, it is not a full and accurate report.
My sincere apologies. Certainly Senator O'Toole was alone, perhaps, in saying there was a doubt in this area. He did say that. The fact is that Committee on Procedure and Privileges discussed it and we went through Standing Order No. 69 many times. We were aware of the possible implications because the Cathaoirleach was, as it were, a judge in his own court. I have to make this point and I had to make the point yesterday, I was disappointed to learn that there was a senior counsel opinion. I was disappointed that it was not put before us on Wednesday last when we met. It might well have made a change in direction. It might have led to a different decision. Certainly, whatever happened, it would have been preferable and I would have been happier.
I am on my feet to make the point that we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Senator Norris issue must still be investigated. I support the idea of an amended forum which will probably be discussed in the morning when Committee on Procedure and Privileges meet. Certainly, from my point of view I would welcome that new initiative because obviously this matter has to be resolved and it has to be resolved correctly in the best interests of everybody in this Chamber.
We are in a ludicrous situation here today where we are discussing a motion to rescind a resolution that was passed by the vast majority of Members in the House, all on the Government benches and in Fine Gael, all except the Independents and the Labour Party. While we are discussing it Senator Norris should be in the House arising out of the result of the High Court decision.
I disagree fundamentally with what Senator Manning said in relation to the question of due process. It is a fact that in this House the Constitution guarantees us the right to make our rules here as a House. We must operate under due process. None of us as citizens is above the law. None of us can be a judge in our own case. Natural justice does not allow us to abrogate. Consequently, due processs must be observed. I do not agree with what the Leader of the House said, that there is a constitutional crisis. I believe the Constitution is in fact affirming the situation. We have moved away from the course of natural justice and the Constitution and the High Court is bringing us back onto that course. That is the nub of the situation.
It is a shame that if there was advice from the Attorney General the House was not made aware of it prior to the vote being taken. The Labour benches advised caution, that no precipitate decision should be taken, we should wait for a week to see what the outcome of the court decision was, that we were concerned that due process was not being adhered to and we were concerned that the process of natural justice was not being adhered to. If our advice had been taken we would not be in this ludicrous situation whereby within a week of that decision being taken we are now seeking to rescind it.
One of the things that bothers me about this discussion is that even from the very start of the allegation we were talking about someone not doing substantial justice to another Member, not giving him honour, not being kindly and not following a golden rule. Here we are debating the rescinding of a resolution that will facilitate a judicial inquiry. We are about to get into a debate here that might jeopardise that and say some unkindly things in the process.
The way I see it is that all that has happened is that the book of life was thrown at us because, according to the courts, we did not follow the proper procedure. As a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges I accept that. I also believe that there are two sides to everything. I believe the two sides need an opportunity to state their case. I was away until late last night. I did not get The Irish Times this morning and naturally I do not know what is in it. What I am saying now will not jeopardise my attitude to the whole question of dealing with procedure and privileges. The only way I work is within structures I deal with the events, truths and realities and make a decision on that basis. That is what has been done. Apparently it has been proven that it was not correct. I do not know what all the whinging and bellyaching is about now. We should just accept that it was not correct, let the rescinding go ahead and the judicial inquiry, and let Senator Norris come in and take his rightful place in the Seanad when the motion is passed.
There may be some difficulties. Somebody said that Senator Norris should be in the Chamber at the moment. I do not think there would have been any fuss if Senator Norris had walked into the Chamber today. He used his discretion and sat outside the door because he knows we are not on the Order of Business yet. It is a question of lifting the suspension imposed on him. Procedurally, it would be difficult to say he should be here until we have disposed of the motion. It is only a procedural matter, it is not anything against Senator Norris or a belief that he should not take his place here. If we pass the motion he can take his place here. Let us take out the crown of thorns now, let it go ahead to the courts and let them make their decision.
It should be pointed out that Senator Norris was not prevented from coming in here today. In acknowledgment of that, it is worth noting, too, that Senator Norris contributed in a very special way that has ensured that there would be no conflict or embarrassment either to the House or to himself in the manner of his returning to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
On a point of information, I should like to repeat my request to you that you might consider making a statement on the main issue of withholding information from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
The Committee on Procedure and Privileges are meeting in the morning and they will be discussing that matter. At that time I will be giving to the committee my views in relation to any matters that may need clarification or explanation. It is in that context that I intend to make comment. I am not prepared to make comment to the press in any of its forms. I believe it would be in breach of privilege. Already that has been happening with Members of this House who have engaged in discussion with the media. That in itself is in breach. I owe it to the House and to the committee not to be in breach as Cathaoirleach, regardless of what other Members may feel or think about that particular aspect of their obligations.