I call on the Independent Senator to move motion No. 94.
Removal of Cathaoirleach from Office: Motion.
On a point of order, is it appropriate, a Chathaoirligh, that you should be in the Chair for a debate which involves yourself? It is very undesirable to say the least.
I understand it is even though I might prefer not to be.
I do not know how you can "understand it is" as it has never happened before.
That is the difficulty we have been in this week.
I formally request you to change your mind and leave the Chair. It is singularly inappropriate and serves no purpose that I can see of any good to this House, to its dignity or to this debate.
I second that.
On a motion of censure in the Dáil the Ceann Comhairle stayed in the Chair.
We are not in the Dáil.
I am calling on the Independent Senator to move the motion.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann hereby resolves that the Cathaoirleach shall be removed from Office.
On a point of procedure, is it not possible to take Senator Ryan's precedural motion that you leave the Chair?
I understand it is not.
I regret that you do not see fit to leave the Chair on a matter in which you are personally concerned. I am afraid it is possibly consistent with what has happened over the last weeks. What has happened over the last weeks has been very damaging to the Seanad, the Independent Members, the Fine Gael Members, the Labour Party Members but, most of all, to the Members of the Government party. I hope, when this is over, that the view of the public of this Chamber will not be irreparably damaged. I am conscious, and I know my colleagues here are conscious of the damage that has been done in the last few weeks to this Chamber.
We put down this motion in the full knowledge of its seriousness. I would like to remind you of some of the background to this motion and the issues involved. You were elected Cathaoirleach of the Seanad last September, in controversial circumstances. It should be stated that on your election, the Independent Members, despite enormous pressure, did not remind this House or the public of the past record which you had in other offices of State. We opposed you, but opposed you because we proposed somebody else. We opposed you because we thought that person was better. We did not mention those things which we felt we should have mentioned. We thought it was fair that you should be given a real chance to prove yourself as Cathaoirleach, and as an impartial Cathaoirleach, of this House.
We were under pressure to resurrect the ghosts of the early 1980s and we resisted that pressure. It would have been easier to do so. On reflection, we were wrong. On reflection, we should have said that day that we considered you, to be unsuitable for office because of your past record.
There were other reasons why we opposed you. You had no experience of the Seanad. You were parachuted in here without knowing the rules. Those inadequacies became very apparent over the period between September and Christmas. Early on you made mistakes on points of order; you made mistakes on points of procedure. That we tolerated; that we did not pick on; that we did not oppose; that we understood. Indeed, early on, we did not raise as major issues here what we considered to be partisanship on your part.
It was only after Christmas, and during the Christmas recess, that it became quite apparent to the Independent Senators, who were being extremely vigilant in regard to your performance, without engaging in any sort of vendetta — we were very keen to be seen not to be doing that — that you were becoming involved in political issues in a way that was unpredented for a Cathaoirleach of the Seanad. It was when we, as Independents, early on, objected to this, because it was contrary to the conventions and traditions of this House, that the trouble which has culminated in today's motion really started.
When the Independents objected to the party political stances you were taking and the partisanship which you were showing, because we felt it was dangerous and contrary to the traditions of this House, Senator Murphy and I were suspended and Senator Norris was suspended the next day. This started the controversy in which we are now embroiled. I do not wish, and I do not think it is correct today, to go into the details of the allegations and the statements made by Senator Norris against you, except to say, as I have said before, that we have no fear about putting those allegations before an impartial, properly constituted tribunal of which you are not the chairman. That is the prerequisite.
Those allegations were referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. They were not, significantly and strangely, immediately referred. Senator Norris was not asked by you to withdraw them in the House. Strangely, they were referred afterwards to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, because it appeared to many on the other side of this House that it was a good opportunity to take on those on the Independent benches who apparently were, getting a little bit too independent and maybe too trubulent. There may well be — we accept this — some faults on this side of the House. There may well be genuine complaints about the vigorous way the Independents have behaved on this side of the House. We are prepared to listen to any representations which are made on that issue. That may be a fair criticism but there was undoubtedly a feeling abroad that it was time to take us on and put us in our place.
That particular rush to judge Senator Norris resulted in the setting up of a committee of trial which had fundamental flaws. It was apparent to all of us on these benches what those fundamental flaws were. We could not understand why they were not apparent to anybody else. The fundamental flaws were simply that you were a judge in your own case; that Senator Norris could not call witnesses; that he was not allowed legal representation and that as the Government had an inbuilt majority on that committee the result was, therefore, predestined. That, obviously, is contrary to natural justice, as we have found on several occasions since it was tested. As far as I know, not even a whisper was raised at that committee about these points, with the honourable exception of Senator O'Toole.
On 7 March, Senator Norris was found guilty of a serious breach of privilege. On 8 March Senator Norris refused to withdraw it. On 9 March you sought a legal opinion from the State Solicitor's Office, a very wise course of action at the least. On Tuesday 13 March you received that legal opinion, according to your own statement, and you regarded it as irrelevant. On Wednesday 14 March, after that legal opinon had been received, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges took a decision, in ignorance of that legal opinion, to suspend Senator Norris. Your own silence was obviously one of the most culpable acts in this saga.
On Thursday, 15 March, Senator Norris was suspended by the Seanad. On Friday 16 March, having warned the Committee on Procedure and Privileges that he was going to take this action, Senator Norris took a High Court action, the result of which we all know. On Monday 19 March, according to your statement, you met counsel. On Tuesday, 20 March you informed the Committee on Procedure and Privileges of the legal opinion which you had received. On Wednesday, 21 March, Senator Norris was unanimously reinstated by the House. On Thursday last week, you issued a statement to, I presume, the press, but it was issued initially to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and it was widely circulated in this House after it appeared in the press the next day. On the same day there was an attempt illegally to reconvene this House to make that statement.
As a House, we have to make two decisions. We have to make a decision about whether the apology in your statement is enough and whether the explanation is believable. I am afraid that on both counts, as far as I am concerned, you fail. The most unforgiveable part of your statement, and the most unforgiveable action in the whole unhappy story, is your involvement of a civil servant in the whole saga. All decisions taken were taken by you. As far as I am concerned, the fact that you decided to embroil and blame a civil servant in this story means that you are not only unworthy to hold the office you hold, but you are unworthy to sit in this House. To me that sin is unforgiveable. It is unforgiveable for anybody to blame somebody who cannot answer back for a decision which was taken.
You say in your statement that you did not consider the opinion to be relevant because decisions had already been taken by the committee. I find it impossible to accept that. If the opinion was not relevant on Tuesday, 13 March, as you say, why did you ask for it on Friday? What happened between Friday, 9 March, and Tuesday, which made it irrelevant? The facts are quite simple. Nothing material happened in that time, which would make it irrelevant. You also say that decisions had been made. What decisions had been made? You do not explain.
The decision that had been made had been made the week before, on 7 March, that Senator Norris was guilty of a breach of privilege and he was invited to withdraw. The decision was reversed at the next committee meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The decision to penalise Senator Norris by suspending him from this House was made after the legal opinon had been received. I cannot but believe that you sat through a Committee of Procedure and Privileges meeting concealing that from them and then you sat through the debate on Senator Norris's suspension in this House with the full knowledge of that opinion. Not only were the Committee on Procedure and Privileges deceived but this House was deceived. I also believe that your party colleagues were deceived in this matter. I do not believe that you informed them. They, as well as us, have been let down.
I hesitate to say, or to imagine, what would have happened if the opinon you received had been the opposite opinion. What would have happened if the State Solicitor's office had produced an opinon saying that you were right to be in the Chair, that you could stay in the Chair on your own case and that it did not offend natural justice? I have no doubt that that opinion would have been revealed in all its glory and paraded not only before the Committee on Procedure and Priviliges but before the House. To me that is unanswerable; to me that is unforgivable. For that reason as well, you should resign.
You also say in the third paragraph of your statement "the opinion was not discussed between myself and the Clerk until Monday, 19 March when we met with counsel." My initial reaction to that was that there was a misprint. There was no misprint because in the paragraph before that you talk about discussions you had with the Clerk about this very matter on 13 March. The two consecutive sentences directly contradict each other. We in this House cannot be expected to put up with that sort of insulting document.
It was totally wrong, when Senator Norris informed the Committee on Procedure and Privileges that he intended to go to the courts in advance of their meeting, that this should have been dismissed as an idle threat. I was with Senator Norris when he wrote out that notice, when he told them that he was going to the courts. Apparently you, having an opinion on this, dismissed it and said nothing. It was full of concealment of relevant information.
The Seanad, I am afraid, because of all those actions, because of the farcical situation last week when there was an atempt to act totally illegally, to reconvening it in order that we could hear a statement from you, has made a fool of itself in the eyes of the public. Neither do I believe your statement that you did not know that this opinion was for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Who also did you think it was for? I do not know. Even if it was not, you had an immediate duty to bring it to their attention. As I do not believe your explanation, because it is full of contradiction, I believe that the office which you hold should be removed from you and that you should resign. I believe your office is irreperably damaged by you holding it. The fact that you have, quite obviously, lost the confidence of all the Opposition side, that you have lost the confidence of the Progressive Democrats, who supported you up to the hilt until last week, should be an indication to you that you no longer can hold this office with any distinction.
The damage to the Seanad will be irreperable. I believe not only because of your past record, which is dismal, that you should resign but I also think that as the effects are so serious, taken together with your past record, that an apology is not enough. I have no confidence, Sir, that you will not behave like this again. That is the problem. There is too much evidence that you have behaved like this before, that you have behaved like this now, and that you will behave like this again.
That is the nub of the problem. That has to be said. Finally, I appeal to the Fianna Fáil Party, who I know have found this a particularly difficult situation. I know, and everybody on those benches knows, that privately, a large element in the Fianna Fáil Party would prefer if the Cathaoirleach resigned. I appeal to the party to put this Office of State, which is at stake here, before loyalty to the party in this case.
The future of the Seanad and the respect which the public hold for the Seanad is at stake. I know the pressures which are on Fianna Fáil. I know what party loyalty means in Fianna Fáil but I also know what Fianna Fáil Senators feel privately because the Cathaoirleach abandoned them last week. The Cathaoirleach did not tell them something which was material, which is now causing them political embarrassment. For the sake of the Seanad, for the sake of that Chair, for the sake of this institution of the State, I would ask them to vote with us for this motion of no confidence.
Senator Brendan Ryan to second the motion.
Tá cuid mhaith go bhféadfá a rá inniu, a Chathaoirligh; tá cuid mhaith go bhféadfainn a rá. I was, after all, silenced for the entire week of previous discussions by what must have been the most peremptory dismissal of a Member of this House in its entire history. I want at the beginning of my remarks to subscribe fully to what Senator Ross said, that it is singularly, totally and completely inappropriate that you should remain in the Chair for this debate. You have shown yourself quite capable of creating quite extraordinary precedents. You could, in the interests of this House, have created one more today. It will not, let me say, have any effect on what I have to say but it is in direct defiance of what I would regard as the proper spirit of parliamentary debate that you would sit here and preside over a debate about yourself.
This House is of great value to me. I was absolutely thrilled when I was elected. I have found it a useful part of the parliamentary process. I have found it a place where I could see things done, when I had a small contribution to make too, to changes in our society, attitudes in our society. Most of what I have contributed to in this House has been positive, noble and uplifting and it has been done by Members from all sides. Issues have been raised, matters have been pursued that were worthwhile, positive and uplifting. It is, therefore, particularly sickening to see a House that I know is a worthwhile part of Irish politics have its prestige and status lowered in the way that has happened and lowered, may I say, regretfully, by you. I have treated all your predecessors with respect and affection. I have respected them, I have liked them and I have had serious disagreements with them. I have been suspended by two of your predecessors. I still have respect for them; I still have affection for them because I could see that whatever my views about their individual limitations, they were doing their job, according to what I would call, decent standards.
I have watched with horror the spiralling of this House to an almost inevitable disaster over the last number of months. I have watched it, not with pleasure, but with great pain, because I value this House. I value democratic politics in this country and I value the worth of the political process in this country. I value the small contribution that I can make within a system and within institutions that are respected and worthwhile in this country. Therefore, I have to look at your statement of last week. I have to wonder to myself could it possibly be a mistake. I do not think anybody who listened to Senator Ross could have any doubt about the fact that the balance of the evidence is that it was not a mistake, that you were aware of the consequences of what would happen.
I would remind the House that on the Thursday when Senator Norris was suspended there was enormous pressure on him, pressure expressed in terms of considerable affection and goodwill, to withdraw. If Senator Norris had withdrawn his remarks, none of this would probably ever have surfaced and, to put it at its crudest you would have got away with it. I have to conclude, therefore, that you knew precisely what you were doing. We are now in a constitutional morass and in an institutional morass in where many of us, with great distaste, are forced to stand up here and forced by you to say to your face that what you have done to this House is permanently damaging. Your behaviour is damaging not just to you, that is your affair, or not, indeed, just to Fianna Fáil, because that is their affair, but to us too.
I have looked at this from a variety of perspectives and I have looked at it, in particular, from the perspective of the background I come from, the background of traditional Fianna Fáil, the Fianna Fáil that I referred to when Senator Willie Ryan was leaving this House, as the party of decent values. There are many Members on that side of the House who subscribe to those decent values, who found what I had to say both positive and worthwhile and who complimented me on my reference to decent values. I know about the decent values because the political values that I was brought up with were the values Fianna Fáil used to have. There are many people on those benches who tell me how much those values mean to them. I have shared platforms with people on that side of the House who have told me that their political objective was to regenerate those values. I have watched those values buried in the mud by the events of the last three or four weeks, particularly the events of last week.
I say to you that nobody outside this House can believe that what happened last week was an accident. There was ample warning, there was ample evidence. My colleague, Senator O'Toole, in particular, had made the point over and over again to you and you judged, for your own reasons — I cannot judge your reasons, I can only judge your actions — that you would take a line which is at variance with what everybody else believes to be reason, common sense and practical.
The scale of your misjudgment, the scale of your withholding of information from the senior committee of this House, a constitutionally-based committee, the scale of that is so severe that no apology could be adequate. An explanation which told us why it was done could, perhaps, have been accepted, but there has been no explanation. There has been a description which has involved a disingenuous entering into political controversy of a civil servant, a civil servant who should not have been drawn into this controversy. He did not draw himself into this controversy. You drew him into it. I believe, therefore, what virtually every newspaper in the country believes, what the general public, to my certain knowledge believes, what a large part of the Fianna Fáil organisation believe — I agree with them — that they have no confidence in you, no trust in you, no faith in you and no hope of a future conversion. Therefore, I believe you should resign.
It is important that we go back a little to look at what really caused this debate. It happened on 8 February when Senator Norris made the following statement:
I wish to move an amendment to the Order of Business. The amendment I wish to move is that the Item No. 58 on the Supplementary Order Paper be taken first today because a properly convened democratic meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union was subverted by a reconvened meeting which altered the composition of the delegation to exclude all representation from the Seanad. It is a matter of particular regret to me that this motion was proposed by you a Chathaoirligh.
Senator Lanigan, the Leader of the House, not the Cathaoirleach, requested that CPP would meet. It did, on 14 February. The allegation against the Cathaoirleach was to be investigated. Subsequently, as we all know, we had meetings on 14 and 28 February, 7, 14 and 20 March. A lot of valuable time has been taken up on this issue.
While the investigations were taking place, as part of the ongoing process, many members of the CPP spoke with members of the executive of the IPU, of all shades of political opinion. I spoke with three Fine Gael and three Fianna Fáil members of the committee. All members of the CPP, to my knowledge, checked out the official minutes of the IPU meeting. The common denominator, with the exception of the Independent groups' report, was that all of these reports and the official minutes of these meetings, did not substantiate Senator Norris's allegations.
Senator Norris was then invited to appear before the committee to discuss the allegations. Before coming to meet the CPP he wrote to the committee and he made certain requests to be legally represented, to have the proceedings of the House recorded verbatim, to call witnesses. Those requests were rejected by the CPP on the grounds that he was seeking a quasi-judicial hearing. They were debated at length and they were refused on 28 February. Because it was late on that particular day, it was decided to wait for one week to Wednesday, 3 March, to talk to Senator Norris. In his letter, he also referred to such things as gossip, publicity and so on. I certainly have to ask: Who created the gossip? Who created the publicity? Everybody on the CPP knew who was creating the gossip, who was creating the publicity. How many interviews had we with the Irish Independent, the Evening Herald, proving to me, if proof was needed, that the learned Trinity Senator craves for publicity? Indeed, it is known that both himself and Senator Ross are in extreme competition as to who will get the most publicity, particularly The Irish Times publicity, because of the electorate who read that paper. This in itself creates problems for this House on the Order of Business.
Senator Norris also referred to the committee as being a hostile committee. One member correctly questioned, when the Senator arrived, that very first comment and he made the point that he took exception to this hostile question. Senator Norris immediately jumped to his feet, gathered his papers, accused the Senator in question of slander and with a speed that would put a steroidal Ben Johnson to shame, ran from the room in an obvious rage. A very short time later, to my horror and surprise, I saw his name on the monitor. For a man who ought to have been anxious to put forward a good case, a good defence, I came to the conclusion that he acted quite strangely.
I ask myself, did this gentleman, who feels he is so superior to every other being, really want to be interviewed? It must be noted that Senator Norris's allegation, because he made it the first day he came in, because he made it against the Cathaoirleach — he involved the Cathaoirleach straightaway — was in breach of privilege. My regret, at this time, is that these allegations which the CPP found to be a serious breach of privilege, are temporarily taking Senator Norris off the hook.
The Norris issue is not over yet and we must not lose sight of this issue. We must remember that he attempted to apologise but it was a very half-hearted apology, unlike the open, frank and unreserved apology we had from the Cathaoirleach. Senator Norris, as far as I can recall said: "I am prepared to accept that it is necessary for me, technically, to withdraw the allegations". He did not go the full way. What a pity, what a tragedy, he had not the guts to give to the House the same open and honest apology that the Cathaoirleach gave.
What matters is that Senator Norris has been found guilty by the CPP. I find it very regrettable that his way of dealing with the matter, namely his approach to the courts, hits at the very root of parliamentary democracy. The Oireachtas must be free to carry out its work without having to look over its shoulder every now and then at the courts. In this context I was surprised — indeed many legal people were surprised — that the learned High Court judge, on what is apparently an extremely summary procedure, on the application for a conditional order on judicial review, a point of major constitutional importance, made his decision, without, it seems, the presence of any lawyer to argue the constitutional point that the independence of the Oireachtas requires that the Oireachtas should order its own affairs. I would certainly prefer to take the view that if any person has a grievance in the Oireachtas the institutions of the Oireachtas, which includes the CPP of the Seanad, are there to achieve justice and to achieve fairness. To argue otherwise is to fundamentally re-write Article 15.10 of the Constitution. Article 15.10 of the Constitution says:
Each House shall make its own rules and standing orders, with power to attach penalties for their infringement, and shall have power to ensure freedom of debate, to protect its official documents and the private papers of its members, and to protect itself and its members against any person or persons interfering with molesting or attempting to corrupt its members in the exercise of their duties.
We move on to Standing Orders of this House which is the next logical step. Standing Order No. 11 says that:
During the absence of the Cathaoirleach through illness or other cause, the Leas-Chathaoirleach shall perform the duties devolving upon and exercise the authority conferred up on the Cathaoirleach by these Standing Orders.
There is no provision for a voluntary stepping down. You go on to the Standing Order which sets up CPP:
There shall be appointed at the commencement of every Seanad a committee to be known as the Committee of Procedure and Privileges, which shall consist of the Cathaoirleach, who shall be Chairman, The Leas-Chathaoirleach and ten other Senators.
There is nothing in that Standing Order to say that where the Cathaoirleach is dealing with a matter concerning himself he must vacate the Chair. There is no provision for the Cathaoirleach to stand down voluntarily and become an ordinary member of the committee.
I believe, for the Cathaoirleach to vacate the Chair, except in the case of illness or any other cause, would very much be in breach of Standing Order No. 69. Therefore, any decisions made, if he were not in the Chair and available in the House, would be null and void, would be invalid. In the absence of a reference to deal with this matter the Cathaoirleach had no other choice. I would suggest that we just cannot argue Standing Order No. 69 out of existence. We find the Cathaoirleach, therefore, in a no-win situation, a catch 22 situation.
Standing Order No. 69 is a fact of life, I believe that from now on a change might be made in the review of Standing Orders which the Committee on Procedure and Privileges is currently carrying out. It is emerging, as far as I can figure, that the issue is not one involving an error of judgment or otherwise on the part of the Cathaoirleach, but a very serious constitutional issue bearing on a possible conflict between the very clearly defined Standing Orders Nos. 11 and 69 and what is known as the principle of natural justice, in the context of the Norris case, this matter of natural justice, this thing of the judge in his own case or in his own cause.
People think we did not talk about that. Of course, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges discussed it. Senator Joe O'Toole referred to it. Senator Norris referred to it. Members of Committee on Procedure and Privileges spoke about it and no one proposed that the Cathaoirleach should not chair the meeting.
What really is natural justice? I am not a legal man, I regard myself as an ordinary person in the street. I know I have broad ideas, cothrom na Féinne, fair play, that kind of thing. We all have ideas of our own about what it means. It is a broad concept but it is difficult to define. It is an abstract idea, hard to define accurately. On the other hand, Standing Order No. 69 is very definite. It gives positive instructions to the Cathaoirleach. What was the Cathaoirleach to do? What were the committee to do? The judge in his own cause is fine and we all understand it but surely it really means a judge in a different situation. We could argue that.
Certainly being chairman of Committee on Procedure and Privileges, I would argue, is not the same thing as being a judge in the courts. To me there is a tradition in the House of the Cathaoirleach being totally impartial when he is in the Chair. That tradition of impartiality has been upheld by Cinn Comhairle, by Cathaoirligh. Had the Cathaoirleach sat on the wings beside any of the ordinary members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges I suggest he could have had a much more adversarial role. He could have been a greater threat to Senator Norris. In regard to the chairman and his chairmanship generally, of the Norris case, I have to say that Senator Doherty, the Cathaoirleach, acted completely fairly. I defy any member of Committee on Procedure and Privileges to say otherwise. When it came to what was known as "make your mind up time," when the sanctions were being imposed, there was a chat. Some members said three weeks, others might have said two weeks and so on. Then finally one member said: "We will give the man one week, the minimum sentence. We do not want to make a martyr out of this guy". What did the Cathaoirleach say in all this debate, this monster, this hostile Cathaoirleach? He said three words at the finish. "Is that agreed?" That is what he said to us. So much for natural justice and fair play.
I accept that the Cathaoirleach of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges is a highly controversial politician. The vilification of the man is now a national pastime. The papers at the weekend were a disgrace, they were riddled with inaccuracies. If I were the Cathaoirleach, or if any of my colleagues was the Cathaoirleach, if anybody on the other side was the Cathaoirleach the matter would not get two lines in the papers. Members of the House on Committee on Procedure and Privileges would argue he was inexperienced, the poor old devil, a slight omission. There would be nothing like what has happened in the last few weeks.
Does the Senator really believe that?
I cannot comment on the past experience of Senator Doherty. I was not directly involved, but I have been involved in this issue. Last week I said I was unhappy that the senior counsel's report was not put before us. I would have much preferred if it had been put before us. In hindsight, of course, it would have made life easier for all of us. Senator Avril Doyle, has just made a comment privately to me that she felt let down last week.
It was Senator McDonald.
No, it was Senator Avril Doyle who said it. I fully understand what she meant. I was let down. My party were let down. I said that knowing the report was not put before us, I still say that I am unhappy but I have really tried in the meantime to get to the bottom of it. I have read reports, opinions, documents in much greater detail. With regard to the reasons for not putting forward the senior counsel report, he did not believe that the opinion was relevant. He made the point that the decision was made in principle, which is true. There is a good deal of truth in that because certainly on 7 March, when Senator Norris withdrew, certain principles were laid down. On balance, I would say to my colleagues, certainly if it was put before us we might have thrown it out, we might have taken a different direction, we might have sought further legal advice, or whatever. On balance, I would say it would have some impact. At the end of the day if we had fully thrashed it out, it might have made no difference.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator has one minute.
I understood I had 20 minutes.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
15 minutes. that was agreed on the Order of Business.
Senator Doherty, the Cathaoirleach, said he thought the opinion was for himself. That is true.
On a point of order, we would have no objection if the Senator was given a few more minutes to finish his case.
I can give him some time from my own speech.
In fairness, the Cathaoirleach thought it was a report for himself. In the knowledge that the Chief State Solicitor had advised that whether it was for the Committee or the Cathaoirleach, irrespective of whom it was for, they were entitled to a legal opinion, what happened the report subsequently was a matter for the client. I would have preferred if he had put the report before us.
I got the impression, the first time it was mentioned at a meeting, that the Cathaoirleach was somewhat dismissive of the opinion. Obviously he had his grounds for having those thoughts. I gave it fair scrutiny of my own. I am not a legal person. If the Cathaoirleach came to that conclusion I would certainly agree with him. We have to remember that it is only an opinion, whether Committee on Procedure and Privileges got it or the Cathaoirleach got it. We must remember that opinions are got on a regular basis and that solicitors and senior counsels differ from time to time. We had the famous Hanrahan case when the High Court said one thing and the Supreme Court said something different.
I feel that the report was not sufficiently researched. There is no case law mentioned. In my opinion the report did not come to grips with the issue of Standing Order 69 versus natural justice. He did not tease out and explain how Standing Order 69 and the concept of natural justice in this instance are in conflict. In the report he states:
The issue to be determined by the committee was whether or not the Cathaoirleach had subverted the meeting referred to and sought to exclude all representation from the Seanad.
In giving this opinion he misunderstood the terms of the allegation because he interpreted that the Cathaoirleach was also being charged with subverting a democratic meeting of the IPU committee. Clearly this was not the case.
With regard to the question of office holders who receive opinions, it is a well known fact that they have the discretion to accept or reject opinions — in this case it is irrespective of whether the Cathaoirleach got it for himself or not. There is a precedent for this as far back as 1975 and there was one last year. Any office holder in the exercise of his duty receives from time to time official advice which he either accepts or rejects as the case may be. This, in my opinion, is no less true for the Cathaoirleach. In addition, there are many cases whereby a legal opinion obtained may not be accepted. Indeed, it would be very strange if every time you got a legal opinion it had to be accepted.
We would have to see it to make that decision.
Nothing in this whole issue was for gain to the Cathaoirleach. No matter who was the chairman of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, no matter whether we postponed the decision for a week, two weeks or a month, we would still have the same result. The Cathaoirleach went out of his way to apologise unreservedly to the committee. Despite what was said by a previous Member, he has accepted full responsibility. I am somewhat disappointed that the Fine Gael Party tabled their motion. It is down for tomorrow but obviously it will not be discussed. At least they waited until last Thursday until everything was completed. I have to contrast that with the indecent haste of the Independents on Wednesday morning when they got a smell of the situation. It is an issue that has been greatly exaggerated. It is for political reasons. There is a witch-hunt on for the Cathaoirleach. In my opinion this is not a resigning issue.
The issue before us is simple and uncomplicated. It is that a majority of Members of Seanad Éireann, for the first time in the history of this State, have lost confidence in the judgment and the integrity of the Cathaoirleach. I say "majority" advisedly because I know, and everybody else in this House knows, that in addition to all the Opposition groups and in addition to Fianna Fáil's partners in Government, the Progressive Democrats, almost half of the Fianna Fáil group have no confidence in their Cathaoirleach. I only have to look into their faces today to see the shame and the hurt which the Cathaoirleach has inflicted on them and to know that a majority of the far side, or a sizeable number, have no confidence in the Cathaoirleach.
Were this a normal party political attack on the Cathaoirleach the first reaction, and, rightly in my view, of Fianna Fáil wold be to put down an affirmative motion of confidence in the Cathaoirleach because the Cathaoirleach belongs to all parties. That is what the Cathaoirleach and his supporters wanted, that is what was asked of the Fianna Fáil group in this House and that is what his own party group have refused to give him. That refusal speaks more eloquently and more loudly the true feelings of Fianna Fáil than anything I can say. I am saying directly to my Fianna Fáil colleagues that their loyalty in this case is misplaced.
Standards in public life, the integrity of this House and of the office of Cathaoirleach, are greater and are more fundamental than the personal convenience of any one man or of the temporary embarrassment which may be inflicted upon the Fianna Fáil Party. Their vote today — and it is on their vote that they will be judged — is saying to the public that they condone what has happened. Their vote today will inflict lasting and serious damage on this House, on the way in which the public judge us and our worth, on the way in which we conduct our business and on our ability to trust one another within this House. The Fianna Fáil Senators should not under-estimate the long-term damage which will follow the short-term fall-out of today's vote. I ask them to think again and to salvage what they can from this entire sorry episode.
The central issue at stake today is very clear and it has been clear for some time. There is no dispute about the central facts. It is that when questions were raised about the correctness of the procedures being followed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, the Clerk of the Seanad, with the consent of the Cathaoirleach, sought legal opinion for the committee through the office of the Chief State Solicitor. There is no dispute about that. This opinion was received on Monday, March 13. It warned that the procedures which were being followed were not sound and that there would be very specific consequences if they were persisted in. It also — this is the irony of the situation — outlined the ways in which the procedures could be changed and changed with no great difficulty to meet the full requirements of natural justice in this case.
Not alone did the Cathaoirleach not bring this opinion to the attention of the committee, as was his clear duty, but when questions were asked about our procedures the following day, by Senator O'Toole and Senator Doyle and perhaps by others — certainly these two Senators raised these questions very specifically and persistently — the Cathaoirleach still refused to disclose the legal advice he had, or even to bring its existence to our attention. In the simplest possible terms he withheld legal advice, vital legal information, from the committee, information which it was the committee's right to have which would have had a vital bearing on our proceedings, information which was asked for in our name.
Subsequently — it was only under pressure from the counsel and under persistent questioning from Senator Doyle, Senator Naughten, Senator O'Toole and myself — the existence of the opinion and its contents were made known. All of that is now a matter of fact and has not been disputed in any of the particulars or details as I have outlined them. The apology, when it came, was too late. It was utterly inadequate considering the scale of what had been done. The explanation which accompanied it was neither full nor frank and was, as Senator Ross pointed out, inaccurate in a number of its particulars.
The central question is — and we cannot get away from it in spite of the very courageous attempt by Senator Fallon — that information was withheld deliberately from the committee. What would have happened had such behaviour happened in an ordinary business? Take, for example, a situation where a board of directors are involved in taking a major decision. The chairman is given legal advice and he keeps it from the other members of the board; they persist and find out about it. That chairman would not last very long and should not last very long. But this is not an ordinary business: this is the second House of a sovereign Parliament. Can we imagine what would happen in the case of the Speaker of the US Senate in a case like this, the Speaker of the Bundestag, the French Parliament, the House of Commons or Dáil Éireann when Éamon de Valera was Taoiseach? Can we imagine what the reaction would be in a situation like this? We do not have to think very hard: the person involved would not wait around to be asked; he would go with whatever dignity remained. We can be very sure there would be no rallying around, no pleas for one more chance, no underplaying or avoiding the importance of the central issue.
The Cathaoirleach should have adopted that course. It was the only decent and responsible course open to him. Instead, he has chosen to be brazen and defiant regardless of the damage he is doing to the office of the Cathaoirleach, to the House, to his own party and to all politicians. Can any of us wonder if from this point on people are even more cynical about politicians, the work of politics, the business of politicians and all we stand for? The price which this Cathaoirleach is asking all of us to pay by his staying here is a price which is far too high.
I would like to look at a number of the peripheral issues in this whole episode. First of all, there is the original meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I do not know if the full truth of whatever happened at that meeting will ever be fully available to us, and I suggest that in a years' time Ph.D. students will probably find material for their theses in regard to what actually happened at that meeting. I want to make one thing very clear: allegations have been made, especially by some members of The Workers' Party outside this House, that there was a conspiracy to exclude members of the smaller parties from the delegation and that this conspiracy included, first of all, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour and, secondly, that this was a conspiracy between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. I want to say very emphatically that there was no conspiracy of any sort. Fine Gael were originally offered one place on this delegation and that is what we got. My colleagues, Deputies Tom Enright, Peter Barry and Donal Carey, were not involved in any conspiratorial arrangement of any sort in this matter and that is a simple truth. I hope that that is the end of this particular silly and fatuous allegation.
Secondly, I want to come to the allegations at the centre of the present controversy. I know Senator Norris feels that his allegations are correct in substance. I know that he wants a chance to prove his case and I say that he must be given that chance. But again, at the risk of being tedious on this question, I have to say that all the Committee on Procedure and Privileges were asked to do in this case was to investigate the allegations made by the Senator on the Order of Business on 8 February and to investigate them in the form in which he made them — nothing more and nothing less. The committee were not asked to investigate what actually happened at that meeting; it was to investigate whether the two specific allegations made could be substantiated. My view on this whole episode has not changed, particularly in this regard, since I spoke in the House on 15 March. I said then that two very specific and particular allegations had been made. I said that they were not substantiated by the official minutes of the IPU meeting. I said that there was a clear conflict of recollection as to what happened and certainly very few of those present agreed with the version of events which was presented by Deputy Eric Byrne. I said in this House on 15 March:
When an allegation is made and made under privilege there is an absolute onus on the person making the allegation to ensure that it is certain, accurate and truthful. In this case there is at best a very strong doubt as to whether the allegation is accurate, there is no certainty at all that the allegation is both accurate and truthful. The burden is on the person who makes the allegation. I am satisfied that at the very least there was sufficient doubt in this case to oblige the person who made the allegation to have doubts themselves and in the case of such doubts about a very serious personal allegation made against the highest office holder in the House of the Oireachtas I believe that these doubts and the uncertainty should have been expressed. There was no question of doubt expressed whatsoever.
I concluded that day:
An allegation made under privilege must be certain and accurate and where there is doubt the burden is on the person who makes the allegation to satisfy himself.
I was certain in that case that these allegations could not be sustained in their fullness. I was certain then and I am certain now, that in a case like this the only reasonable thing to do is to withdraw the allegations. There is a consistency in what we said then and what we are saying now.
One other issue which has, unfortunately, been brought into all of this controversy is the role of the Clerk. I want to say that from the point of view of my own group, and I am sure of all Members of this House, the role of the Clerk has been entirely proper and, in fact, impeccable in this matter. One question is raised as to why the Clerk himself did not circulate the documents in question. The procedure here is that it is the chairman of a committee — the Cathaoirleach in this case — who directs the Clerk as to the agenda and as to what documents are circulated. There are a number of cases — for example, in the case of the Committee on Legislation, of which I was a member in the 1983-87 Oireachtas, where the Clerk was taken to task for having circulated documents without the approval of the chairman. Last year in the Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies there was a controversy over the nondisclosure of a document to the committee by the Chairman.
In the present case had the committee asked for legal advice the Cathaoirleach could not have exercised any discretion in stopping it going to the committee. In this case, however, the initiative very rightly came from the Clerk who obtained legal opinion under the authority of the Cathaoirleach. Thus, the Cathaoirleach had the authority to direct that the document not be circulated to the committee. The Cathaoirleach exercised that authority in his own discretion and that is why we are here today. The Clerk did not have the discretion in this situation to circulate that document. I want to make that very clear and put it very firmly on the record of the House.
One other point I want to come to which has been raised is that in some way there is a personal vendetta, a political vendetta, being conducted against the Cathaoirleach. I want to say that that is absolutely not the case. On the first day of the new Seanad this group voted against Senator Doherty but we said on that day that he would be judged on his record from that point on and we have made every effort to co-operate with the Cathaoirleach in trying to ensure that the business of this House is done in a proper way. As was pointed out, we did not put down our motion of no confidence until he had had a full opportunity to put his point of view to us, to explain in detail why he had done or not done what he had done at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. That is the reason why it is not a Fine Gael motion here today or a Labour motion — these parties waited until the Cathaoirleach was given a full chance to explain. Unfortunately, the explanation did not satisfy us. Nobody in this House enjoys the spectacle of attacks on a personality, enjoys the trauma and difficulty which this sort of situation imposes on people. This is not a personal vendetta, it is not a political vendetta: it is simply that the issue at stake is so clear and of such enormous implications that those on the Opposition benches, and I think almost half of the Fianna Fáil group, feel that we cannot do otherwise.
There can be only one conclusion to this whole sorry affair and that is that the Cathaoirleach should resign and he should have done so without having to be asked. If he stays, his very presence in the office will be a continuing, ongoing reminder of the degradation of the House and of the office which he has brought about. His presence will make it impossible for the House to recover. It will put strains on the way in which we conduct our business. It will undermine our credibility and our seriousness as a House of Parliament and will put intolerable personal pressures on relations within this House. In simple terms, the Cathaoirleach has lost the confidence and the support of a majority of Members in this House. The decision as to whether he remains now lies with the Fianna Fáil Members. It is still not too late to salvage what can be salvaged out of this entire episode.
A fortnight ago in this House we debated the matter of Senator Norris's suspension. Senator Norris's conduct and his alleged breach of privilege is germane to this debate but it is not the central issue. The central issue is the conduct of the Cathaoirleach. I said during the course of that debate that we in the Progressive Democrats had found reinforcement for our argument in favour of abolishing the Seanad, that what we had seen and heard since we three PD Senators had come into the House had reinforced our view.
I am quite confident that, looking at the events of the intervening period since we discussed Senator Norris's suspension, very many more people in the country share our view and I think it must be said in honesty that at this stage the Seanad, its officeholders and, indeed, politicians in general, stand discredited in the eyes of the public. At the very least I believe the public sees us as being less then professional and they see an incompetence in the way we conduct our affairs. But, at worst, they are entitled to feel that they have been deliberately misled and that they have been badly served by all of us in this House. At this stage it is fair to say that we are a laughing stock, and we deserve to be.
I think it is worthwhile stating a few very obvious fundamentals which seem to have been lost sight of. I am conscious of the fact that I am a junior Member of this House and that I should not presume to lecture those who are more experienced, but I do think that we have to ask ourselves why are we all here. I believe we have been elected to this House collectively to serve the interests of the people; that is why we are here and that is the overriding consideration. We are not here to conduct smart exercises in semantics that are more appropriate to an undergraduate debate than to a sovereign House of an independent Parliament. I take Senator Ross's point in accepting some of the nature of that criticism. We are here even less to perform for the Press Gallery by playacting as we often do, or appear to do, on the Order of Business. As was said in one of the morning papers this morning — it is a sentiment I agree with — there are much weightier issues calling for our attention and for address.
I have no doubt that the majority of Members on all sides of this House wish to discharge their responsibilities to the country and to the people to the best of their collective ability. I have no doubt whatsoever about that. Political rough and tumble does not mean that we abandon the standards that the public are entitled to demand of those who serve them. I do not think for one moment that we can complain on our part if the public holds us in contempt or if our citizens are reluctant to participate in the political process if we are not prepared to uphold those highest standards, and it is a very short step from there to anarchy. The need for high standards applies to every Member of both Houses of the Oireachtas, but how very much more must it apply to the most important offices of State, of which Cathaoirleach of this House is one. Not only must the standards be upheld but they must be seen to be upheld; and it is precisely because we in the Progressive Democrats recognise the constitutional importance of the office of Cathaoirleach that we believe that the integrity of that office must be upheld, even at the expense of the person holding the office.
I can understand that members of a political party feel that they must stand by one of their own. That is a very human and very laudable thing. But no party, in Government or outside of Government, must ever think that the party come before the interests of the country. To say that the party come first is to go down the route that has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of the people in Eastern Europe, and it is something that we have lauded in this House. I have just come back from eastern Germany and what I saw and heard there underlines just how idiotic this whole affair has been. There are matters outside this House which are of far more substance than some of the things that have concerned us in recent months. That the matter should have reached the stage of becoming a major political crisis, as it appears to have become, is incredible but it has reached that stage and we must judge it on that.
At the meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges held before the report on Senator Norris was submitted to the House, I took the view that we were entitled to proceed since we had no legal document indicating otherwise and that Senator Norris had not at that stage produced anything legally to constrain us from proceeding. Had I, for one, been in possession of the fuller facts on that occasion I can assure you my position would have been dramatically different from the one I took. I must also say — I am glad that Senator Manning has already referred to it — that throughout this whole affair the officials of the Seanad, and in particular the Clerk of the Seanad, have acted with the utmost propriety. The State is very well served by public servants of their integrity and their calibre and the least we can do in return is recognise that quality in this place.
Senators
Hear, hear.
I support what Senator Fallon had to say in relation to the separation of the powers of the Legislature and the Judiciary. I am on record as having said that it is up to this House to regulate the conduct of its Members and to effect a penalty in the case where the House feels that they have acted improperly — and that should be without fear of reprisal from any quarter outside of this House. When we come in here we should be exempt from those sort of penalties. I also agree with Senator Manning's point — it is also one that I am on record as having said — that the onus was on the person making the allegations to substantiate them and not on the Chair to defend them. However, that is a separate issue from how the Chair may have conducted itself in the affair.
We in the Progressive Democrats derive no pleasure whatsoever from this debate or from the events of the past fortnight. I think this is a sad day for Ireland. The onus on all of us here is to rescue something now from this whole sorry morass and to restore some confidence in this Oireachtas, in the political process, in the office of Cathaoirleach and in politicians. It is not my intention to make a personal attack on the Cathaoirleach. I have been, in the past, at pains to point out the difference between the person and the office and I shall continue to make that distinction. I also must say that we, as is well known, did not support the election of the Cathaoirleach when he was nominated to the office. But I believe there is a wider interest than our own interest within this House, and the interest is that of the country and of the Oireachtas. In the interests of credibility for the political process, for politicians and for this House, I appeal directly to the Cathaoirleach at this late stage to reconsider his position. Otherwise, I am at a loss to know how we will continue to conduct the affairs of this House without continuing acrimony and without a continuing whiff of sulphur. In the absence of such a gesture from the Cathaoirleach the Progressive Democrats will support the motion of no confidence. We are conscious of our commitment to our Coalition partners but this is overridden by our greater commitment to the State, to the integrity of the Oireachtas and to the people.
The proceedings which have taken place here this afternoon as far as the Labour Party are concerned are a matter for sorrow rather than for anger. Over the last fortnight or so the Seanad has been shown in a very bad light indeed. Things started over a relatively minor affair relating to the number of people who would go on a trip to monitor the Nicaraguan elections. Matters progressed to a question of disciplining Senator Norris because of remarks which he made in the House. While this was important it was hardly a matter of fundamental importance. But because of the way it was handled the whole affair has now developed into a question of the confidence of the Seanad in its Cathaoirleach.
The Labour Party feel that the Cathaoirleach has shown poor judgment in chairing the Committee of Procedure and Privileges on the Norris affair. That was made worse when the Cathaoirleach deliberately withheld vital legal advice from the Committee of Procedure and Privileges which would have been likely to affect their decisions and their procedures. As if this were not enough, subsequently the Cathaoirleach went on to involve an official of the Seanad and to embroil him in this whole controversy. I want to say, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, for the record that, as far as the Labour Party are concerned, we feel certain that the Clerk of the Seanad has behaved with utter propriety and with complete integrity right throughout all this affair. So things have got worse and worse. Things bad begun make strong themselves by ill.
The question now is: can the House have confidence in an individual such as the Cathaoirleach who has made this series of errors I have outlined? Can the House have confidence in the Cathaoirleach as a member of the Council of State and potentially one of the three people who would fill the functions of the President in the event of the President becoming ill or having died? Can the House have confidence in someone who chaired a meeting when he was in effect acting as the judge and the prosecuting counsel in the same court? A primary school student, having done a civics course, I would suggest, would know better than to behave in that manner.
I want to again remind the House that during the debate on the exclusion of Senator Norris the Labour Party Senators voted against that because we felt that what was taking place could not be reconciled with the principles of natural justice, that what was taking place was not taking place in accordance with proper procedures. Our views on that occasion are on the record of the House and they are available to be read by anyone who wants to. Can the House have confidence in someone who withheld legal advice that would have prevented the involvement of the Judiciary in the affairs of the Oireachtas? Can the Seanad have confidence in someone who has not the wit to inform the Committee of Procedure and Privileges of the advice that the procedures of the Committee of Procedure and Privileges were flawed and which would also have prevented the whole sorry mess that we find ourselves in today? Can the Seanad have confidence in someone who embroiled an official of the House in the whole affair when there is a well established tradition, based on very sound reasons, that civil servants should not be publicly involved in the type of events which are taking place here this afternoon? It is obvious that the Cathaoirleach should not have chaired the Committee of Procedure and Privileges, that he should not have withheld the legal advice and that he should not have involved an official of the House in this whole business. That, indeed, is perfectly obvious; and it is just about as obvious as the fact that Fianna Fáil, despite the convolutions that went on over the last few days, were going to support the Cathaoirleach from day one in all this matter.
As I have said, the Cathaoirleach showed poor judgment in the whole affair. The Labour Senators cannot have confidence in someone whose judgment is so poor; in particular when that individual happens to be a member of the Council of State and a fundamental pillar in the whole constitutional process. The actions of the Cathaoirleach have resulted in breaching two traditions in this country. He has allowed the tradition that the Judiciary should not be involved in the day-to-day affairs of the Oireachtas to be breached and he has also breached the tradition that civil servants should not be dragged into the political process in the manner that an official of the House has been dragged into this affair over the last week or so.
It now seems certain that the no confidence motion is going to be defeated. This, however, can only happen with the support of those Fianna Fáil Senators who are appointed by the Taoiseach on his personal nomination. That fact alone means that the Taoiseach cannot argue that what happens today is of no concern to him. Surely, in the light of the past events, the Taoiseach has a duty to act in a manner that ensures that this House continues to be held in the respect that it is entitled to from the public. It is a reality that, if the Taoiseach's 11 nominees were not voting this afternoon, the no confidence motion would be carried.
In all of this affair I am sorry to say that the Cathaoirleach once again has shown himself to be accident prone. If this motion is defeated, as I expect it will be, the Cathaoirleach will remain on in effect as a lame duck Cathaoirleach and, in the words of Senator Dardis, with a smell of sulphur still from him. I believe that it is in the interests of everybody in this House and it is in the interests of the institutions of the State that the Cathaoirleach should go and, indeed, that he should resign today.
There are indeed grave constitutional issues involved today in our discussion of this motion. It is perhaps the most serious motion that any Parliament can consider — a vote of no confidence in the Chair. It is not a vote of no confidence in some junior Minister; it is not a vote of no confidence in a Minister or a Taoiseach or even a Government. It is a vote of no confidence in the Chair. That is what it is. Senator Manning has indicated that it is setting a very grave precedent indeed. I am not sure if the gravity of this has been fully taken aboard, this precedent that has today been accepted, that we are debating a vote of confidence in the Chair of one of our Houses of Parliament. I have the unhappy feeling that this whole affair has been inflated almost beyond recognition. I do not agree that there are not other very major issues that we should be discussing. Of course there are, but the motion we are discussing today is a very serious one indeed. To move such a motion the matter should be of the utmost gravity. It should not be just a question of a mistake or even a bad mistake. It should be a matter of such overwhelming gravity that there is no other course open to those who take it upon themselves to put forward such a motion.
As Senator Upton and other Senators have mentioned, this matter has arisen from relatively small beginnings — not that small either, if I may say so. A breach of privilege of this House, in my opinion, is no small matter. I must say that I have been appalled, on being reelected to this House, at the change in atmosphere that prevails, at the mayhem which seems to be the normal situation on the Order of Business and let me be clear about this, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, this originates in one particular group and no other.
Ask yourself why.
I do, indeed, ask myself why. There are some very distinguished Members including, through the Chair, your good self, Senator Murphy, and I find your change of attitude and behaviour extraordinary. Indeed, as one of your colleagues, perhaps unconsciously, indicated that despite his affection and respect for the predecessors of the present Cathaoirleach nonetheless he had twice to be ejected from this Chamber. I find this very sad indeed.
On the question of the Cathaoirleach chairing the committee, that is the procedure laid down. There is no other procedure. Perhaps there should be some other procedure but that would seem to me to be how it stands at present. I am open to correction, but certainly I would have thought that that is the current situation.
As for the matter of seeking advice, I do not want to go over all the details nonetheless. My colleague, Senator Fallon, has had the opportunity of indicating them but, nonetheless, let us remind ourselves for a moment that the committee did not, it is evident, seek legal advice. Perhaps they should have sought legal advice or perhaps they should not, that is their privilege. The Cathaoirleach of the Seanad was the person who sought legal advice. It was his decision to take legal advice, rightly or wrongly, as the case may be. I think probably rightly. Might I for a moment here, since the position of the Clerk has been referred to, join absolutely in relation to the Clerk of the Seanad whose behaviour in this matter has been impeccable, in fully supporting his behaviour. It has been absolutely impeccable. One of the fortunate things we have in this Oireachtas is the excellent Civil Service staff with whom we are blessed and whose behaviour is beyond reproach and, indeed, is a enormous support to us and ensures the success of the Houses of Parliament.
The Cathaoirleach did not inform the Committee on Procedure and Privileges of the legal advice received. I agree that that was a mistake. I do not know how I would have behaved if I had been in the same position. I hope I would have passed on the advice, but it was his decision. Just as it had been his decision that that advice should be sought so it was his decision that it should not be conveyed to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. There are many precedents for this, not just a few. With hindsight, it is very easy to see that it was a mistake. We have all made mistakes and we can see them with hindsight. Hindsight is fairly commonly 100 per cent correct.
The decision had already been taken, again rightly or wrongly, in relation to the allegations made by the particular Member of the Seanad. Indeed, as I understand the position, it was basically an opportunity to let the matter stand for a week and then come back to consider the question of suspension. Perhaps there would have been a different view, perhaps not. I do not know. I certainly agree with hindsight, that it was an error of judgment not to have informed the committee. The Cathaoirleach accepts now that it was an error of judgment. He had the courage and the honour, not only to accept that, it was an error of judgment but also the courage and the willingness to apologise.
This matter is a very serious one but the manner in which it has been dealt with, the manner in which it has arisen does, as Senator Dardis has implied, trivialise this Seanad. I agree with him that it is a very sad day for the Seanad. I may agree for slightly different reasons, I have a slightly different view on it, but I think it is a sad day. Regrettably, standards in this Seanad, in every sense of the word, have taken a downward turn and, with great respect to the Independent group of Senators, who are perfectly entitled to put forward the motion, I suggest that the tabling of such a motion, and particularly the hasty manner in which it was tabled, is a matter of regret, especially when one of their own group, as they often call themselves, had been involved in the matter earlier.
I have great respect for the decision of the Opposition, after due consideration, to move a similar motion and I would agree with very many of the comments that Senator Manning has made, but I still think it a matter of the utmost regret that here we are in this House and whatever the individual personal views of Senators on one side or the other may be the position of the Chair has become a matter of a vote in this House on a motion of confidence. It is a sad, sad day for this Parliament. I am sorry that the Opposition have felt impelled to do so and I respectfully suggest that although indeed an error was made, an error that has been fully apologised for, the gravity of the situation was not such as to merit a motion of no confidence.
I suggest that it is absolutely essential — and I appeal at this late stage to my colleagues on the opposite side of the House — to consider whether we really want to set a precedent in which motions of no confidence are brought in this House against the Chair. That is what it is. Never mind the personalities; never mind anything else, it is a motion of no confidence against the Chair and I would have great difficulty in supporting any such motion. A very bad precedent has been set in putting down such a motion, an even worse precedent would be set were it accepted and voted through.
I am very glad that the Leas-Chathaoirleach is in the Chair at this point because it seemed to be nothing short of bizarre that the Cathaoirleach persisted for a time in being a judge in his own case. I would have found it very distasteful to address my contribution to the Cathaoirleach and that is why in the notes I have compiled here the Cathaoirleach is referred to in the third person. I certainly did not expect that he would be in the Chair.
With regard to Senator Fallon's contribution, may I say that I deplore the dismissive way he referred to counsel's opinion. He is quite right, of course, that counsel's opinion was not infallible but the point is that it was the seeking and then the suppressing of counsel's opinion that constituted the offence, not the infallibility of what counsel said. Let us recall that counsel was appalled that as a matter of course his opinion had not been revealed to the committee. I thought that Senator Fallon was also a bit casual in his interpretation of Standing Order No. 69. He gave us to understand that the Cathaoirleach had no option but to chair the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, that that was his solemn duty. But, in fact, if you read Standing Order No. 69 with a commonsense eye it is quite obvious that the clause envisages a normal state of affairs. What it is saying is that the Cathaoirleach should not be negligent about his duties in the House. Surely it was never meant to convey that he would sit as a judge in his own cause. So I did not find that point very convincing. Is it a sad day for the House? I do not think it is necessarily a sad day for the House. This raises a question of profound importance. It is an embarrassing day for the House. Let us ask ourselves where the embarrassment began. In my view, it began on the first day of the session, when Fianna Fáil were prepared to support a person who, by any standards, was unsuitable for the high office to which they nominated him. I did not say that at the time on that very day because I was myself a nominee and I was precluded from expressing my opinion. But shortly afterwards in some debate I referred to the fact that the Cathaoirleach had been an unsuitable choice and there were protests from the Fianna Fáil benches. I always thought he was unsuitable long before this business came up and I am now confirmed in my opinion.
Senator O'Donovan, among others, has been suggesting in the last few days that the pursuit of this motion was a personal and political witch hunt. It may be for some but, speaking for myself, I have absolutely nothing personal against the Cathaoirleach. As Senator Manning said, there is no suggestion of a vendetta. I would suggest that my attitude towards the Cathaoirleach is probably a great deal more favourable than that of many on the Fianna Fáil benches. I have nothing against him in personal terms.
May I say in that regard, since the media again have simplified one of the original issues in all this matter, namely my exclusion from the parliamentary delegation sent to Nicaragua. I am not quite sure how that came about. I remember being telephoned initially to be told to pack my bags and I looked forward to it, of course, and then through some machinations I had to unpack them again. I do not feel particularly bitter about that but it does raise the questions as to the motives of people who are in a powerful position about the composition of these delegations. I think the motive there clearly was to maximise the party delegation. There is no doubt about that. In the light of all that is happening now such partisan and selfish considerations might well be modified. I do not think there was anything personal in it. Whoever was responsible for replacing me by another kind of delegation I certainly do not think it was at all personal. Incidentally may I correct an implication in Senator Conroy's speech? Senator Norris's name is not on this motion. Senator Norris deliberately did not put his name to this motion.
A member of the Independent group was what I said.
The implication was quite clear I think. I just want to say that for the record. I did not put my name to this motion in any high-minded, moral fit of sancimoniousness. I deplore self-righteous indignation. I certainly have no intention of listening to the unctuous lecture given by Senator Conroy. "Unctuous", now that I come to think of it, is not an inappropriate adjective in view of the Senator's interest. I deplore that unctuousness and sanctimoniousness and I recall, for the edification of my colleagues, the passage in the famous Christmas dinner scene in the Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man where Mrs. Riordan severely reprimands the ghost of Parnell saying he was a sinner and Mr. Casey said, and I share Mr. Casey's admission of human guilt, “We are all sinners and great sinners.” It is salutary to recall that today.
I deplore any suggestion that somehow we are superior to any other individual in this matter but it is simply unthinkable that the Cathaoirleach should continue in office after what has happened. Again, you may say, and I have a certain sympathy for this point of view, that he has been tried and doubly tried, multiply tried, by the media. Sometimes indeed in the course of the last couple of weeks matters were brought up which did not really have any relevance to the present issue in hand. I was not easy about that, I may say. The point is that though the media may be wrong in trying him, and maybe he was not culpable of all the things that were attributed to him some years ago, nonetheless, the suspicion is there. The suspicion is there and no one to whom that kind of suspicion attaches should ever have been put forward for high office. That is the beginning and end of the whole thing.
Senator Ryan is right. There is an astonishing public reaction to this matter, not so much, as was suggested by Senator Dardis, that the public are disgusted with us. The reaction I have got, unsolicited I may say, when I go to refresh myself in various hostelries, is that the Cathaoirleach should go. You may well say this a crude way of listening to public opinion but every Member in the House will know what I am talking about. If Fianna Fáil were really concerned about the House as well as the party they, too, have heard public opinion. I have no doubt whatsoever about that.
The sadness I feel in all this affair is that for so long and every so often we have deplored the lack of publicity for the affairs of this House, the lack of interest of the press, not indeed the Press Gallery, but of those who finally decide what to print in the media. Now the huge irony is that we have got such notoriety. I hope that when all this is over and when we have, I hope, arrived at some accommodation in this difficult matter, the media and the public will be aware that this is an important House of the Oireachtas. The record shows the importance of the motions we have debated here and, above all, the contributions that have been made by Members to the important business of legislation.
I do not think it is acceptable that he should stay. He has to go for the good of the institution. Even if he survives there would be no — I was going to say "never"— glad, confident morning again but there was never a glad, confident morning to begin with. Even now, to use a Shakespearean phrase, his title is beginning to hang loose about him. Courtesy forbids me to complete the phrase. You can check it out in Macbeth. Indeed, I say to Fianna Fáil that they will survive by the sheer force of arithmetic today but they have scotched the snake, not killed it. For the next two or three years we are going to be in a situation where there will be no consensus, no moral authority, where we will have, in effect, a lame duck Cathaoirleach. The situation will be intolerable.
Various suggestions have been made about what the root of this problem is. Reference has been made, for example, to the obstreperousness of the University Senators and their irresponsible desire for publicity on the Order of Business and so on. May I suggest, without entirely discounting that accusation, that in turn, much of the problem, about that behaviour of the University Senators on the Order of Business is because of the poor ordering of business, the frustration that arises from the hopeless ordering of business which goes back, in turn, to the matter of an unreformed Oireachtas. How many times have we, since we met in November, come in to be told that legislation we were expecting could not be taken on the particular day? We have had big gaps in our transactions in the course of given afternoons and we have had major matters, like the capital punishment business, the regularisation of the European Court's ruling on the criminalisation of homosexuality. Again and again we have questioned the Leader of the House as to why these things are not being taken and either he is incompetent or he is not being dealt with fairly by his political superiors. I suggest to Senator Conroy and others that even if the Cathaoirleach were to resign and even if there were to be a new Cathaoirleach — and I think we in the House would accept, and we are ready to accept, any other Fianna Fáil nominee who would have our full confidence — the fundamental difficulty, the same frustration leading to the same antics — as you would put it — would continue on the Order of Business. There will have to be, at the end of the day, some kind of accommodation, some kind of agreed arrangement about all that and some kind of truce between the University Senators and the parties and Fianna Fáil. Let us not put a tooth in it, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, Fianna Fáil resent our presence here.
Hear, hear.
Sometimes Fine Gael resent our presence here, though generous tributes have been paid to the role of the University Senators by the Fine Gael side, but we are at the heart of much of this trouble because under the last Cathaoirleach there was a similar but not so aggravated situation. I would say to Fianna Fáil we are an anomalous presence here. You may well accuse us of being elitist, and we are an anachronism in some ways, but the fact is, whether you like it or not, in terms of motions, in terms of legislation, we have made — and I say "we" totally, collectively and historically; I am not saying I particularly, some of my colleagues are much more laborious than I have had the occasion to be — a remarkable contribution to the legislative process. All you have to do is pick up the records of the House. Tolle lege. It is not a matter solely of playing antics on the Order of Business. But there is a corresponding obligation on us, I would admit, to be responsible. I accept that we have provoked you, in the literal sense.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator has two minutes left.
Senator Conroy has evoked a golden age when he and I were in a gentlemanly Seanad.
It was very nice.
And he would say to me quantum mutatus ab illo, but the fact is that in that Seanad we were given a fair opportunity, for example, to bring up matters on the Order of Business and whatever conclusion we come to today there will have to be some agreement about what is and what is not acceptable on the Order of Business. That causes a lot of the problem. We have the right to bring up that as a public interest, provided we are brief, responsible and dignified. I appeal for a new accommodation and a new truce between us and the major political parties. I do not think — and that is why I am supporting this motion — such a truce is possible under the existing Cathaoirleach and in his absence I would adapt a famous parliamentary phrase used on a far more dramatic occasion: You have not sat there very long, perhaps, but you have sat there certainly long enough for us to say to you “go”.
This is a serious matter and one not to be taken lightly. Senator Murphy mentioned a possible dislike on the part of the Fianna Fáil group of Independent Senators. I have no doubt that Senator Murphy, whatever about a personal dislike of the Cathaoirleach, has a lifelong dislike of the Fianna Fáil Party and I would remind him of a remark he made in University College Cork in 1973 in a modern history lecture to the effect that if Fianna Fáil got back into power he would have to seek political asylum. I do not think his views have changed since.
And I did.
Would that he did.
Before getting to the bones of this matter, I would like to refer to some remarks made by other speakers — firstly, Senator Ross. In fairness, Senator Ross when addressing the Cathaoirleach and when addressing the House stated that he himself, and maybe the Independents, had made an error of judgment originally when the Cathaoirleach was elected which is a parallel, in my view, with the error of judgment which the Cathaoirleach has since made. There is an admission of error that can be made. We can all make errors and I am glad to see he has admitted that.
Another point which was made by Senator Ross was why the Cathaoirleach, when the matter originally arose in relation to the motion put down by him on privilege and other allegations, did not deal with it on the spot. In hindsight, perhaps if it was dealt with on the spot we would not have this problem here today. There were two elements to the offending motion that was put down by Senator Ross, one being the automatic breach of privilege in involving the Chair and the second being the veracity or otherwise of the comments in relation to Senator Norris's allegations in relation to this trip to Nicaragua.
Senator Ross seemed to state that because Senator Norris was afforded a judicial review it was somewhat akin to exoneration. I do not think that is the case because in my view, as a practising lawyer, it is quite easily obtained; judicial reviews come ten a penny.
In regard to this non-disclosure by the Cathaoirleach of the legal opinion comments have been made by speakers on all sides that there appears to be no motive whatsoever for the Cathaoirleach to withhold the opinion. The fact is that he did withhold it and it was an error of judgment in relation to which he has unreservedly apologised, and that should be accepted. There was no material gain, no political gain, no personal gain that I or any reasonable person could attribute to him for his withholding it. I accept, and it has been said here by a previous speaker, that he felt the opinion was got on his behalf and that he had the authority to disregard the opinion for a number of reasons.
I do not have a copy of the opinion in front of me but in relation to the opinion sought and from widespread publication of its contents and so forth, it appears that the opinion in most aspects concurred with the decision of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in relation to the breach of privilege. I feel there are certain defects or flaws in this opinion. An opinion, whether it be from junior counsel, from a solicitor, or from senior counsel, as in this case, is not sacrosanct. There have been experiences where such opinions have been disregarded. I might mention that in 1975 the then Ceann Comhairle chose to ignore a legal opinion tendered to him by the then Attorney General. We must look at precedent, which is of crucial importance here because the type of scenario which this House is facing is unique in itself and in this regard there was the incident in 1969 when Conor Cruise-O'Brien made certain remarks against the then Ceann Comhairle in rather parallel circumstances to those which we encounter here today. In that incident, going on precedent, the then Ceann Comhairle in the Lower House chaired the Committee on Procedure and Privileges meeting with no furore. There is one other precedent where the Ceann Comhairle decided to reject or ignore legal opinion. It is recent and because the matter may still be, to a certain extent, sub judice, I do not wish to elaborate on it. It happened within the last 15 months in the other House.
I would like to go on to state the role of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges is not, in my view as a lawyer — and I have consulted senior counsel on this — a disciplinary, judicial or quasi-judicial body. It is, instead a committee set up under the Constitution to deal with internal affairs. It was never envisaged that it should have judicial or quasi-judicial functions. In this respect I believe that the learned senior counsel engaged failed to advert to this fact, that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges was primarily dealing with a breach of privilege. The report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges back to this House — dated 14 March — clearly upholds that belief. If one looks at the situation of a Cathaoirleach when, as was the case here, there was an attempt to impugn his position, I think it is accepted as an established precedent and rule under Standing Orders, that there is a per se automatic ipso facto breach and, in my view, the suggestion of natural justice does not come into play.
The learned senior counsel, in my view, went on the issue of natural justice. I think he was primarily concerned, possibly, with the other angle, which was the veracity or otherwise of Senator Norris's remarks and amending motion. Consequently — this should be noted and I am satisfied that what I say is correct and would be upheld by the Supreme Court — in relation to a simple attack on the Chair, there is a per se automatic breach of privilege. In this instance, I think probably with hindsight, it was regrettable that the Cathaoirleach did not take immediate action agianst Senator Norris.
I would compliment the members of the Fine Gael Party and of the Labour Party in particular, who, in fairness to them, have accepted several common denominators surrounding this case. That must be appreciated. Senator Manning in his address and Senator Avril Doyle on "Questions and Answers" were both quite fair about the fact that irrespective of who was in the Chair there was an automatic breach of privilege. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges virtually unanimously, except for the dissenting voice of Senator O'Toole, took the view that, on the other angle, there was no substance and no truth in the remarks or allegations against the Cathaoirleach. This is important. Admittedly, both parties have gone further and said that the disregard by the Cathaoirleach of the legal opinion, his failure to present it to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, are sufficient evidence on grounds for a call on him to resign, which is the foundation of this motion. They have said that they are not political. I would feel that they certainly are and, in fairness to the parties, they have done an excellent job in highlighting and making great political play out of the unfortunate position that the Cathaoirleach found himself in.
Counsel also suggested, from what I gather in the press, that a new meeting should be reconvened with the Cathaoirleach present but not in the Chair. This is my view, is impossible, totally and utterly, if you use the strict and proper interpretation of Standing Order No. 69, which clearly states that the Cathaoirleach shall chair the Committee on Procedure and Privileges meeting. There is an old Latin maxim: expressio unius est exclusio alterius which, if you want the strict interpretation, means, if you express one thing in writing — as is clearly contained in this Standing Order No. 69 — you cannot — as mentioned by Senator Murphy — bring in outside elements of common sense et cetera. There is a strict interpretation attaching to that.
The fundamental point here is that on grounds of natural justice, nobody is, as the Latin tag says, a judge in his own case. In this instance, I feel particularly strongly because over the last few days the Cathaoirleach has been tried by the media and there has been ample comment by the learned senior counsel and by speakers here today that he was a judge in his own cause. I would disagree because the position of judge cannot be equated with that of chairman. It is obvious that the position of a judge carries greater importance, greater judicial decision. In this instance, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges have power to put forward views and recommendations and it is improper and without legal foundation to state that in this instance the Cathaoirleach was a judge in his own cause.
It should be further noted in this instance that the Cathaoirleach did not vote. If it were the case that he had a casting vote as Cathaoirleach, then I would regard the situation as being more serious. I must point out — and this is a very important legal matter — the complainant in this instance against Senator Norris was not the Cathaoirleach but was the Leader of the House, Senator Lanigan. This is an indisputable matter of fact and in fairness, some of the people across the way recognise that. It is abundantly clear that the question of the Cathaoirleach disregarding the opinion, wrong may he be, is of an academic and technical nature; it may be of an important technical nature but not of huge substance. It would not have changed the end result and the words used by the senior counsel were that it would be impossible to come to any other decision. The relevant maxim here is that the law cannot take trivial matters seriously.
Time, Senator.
With respect, some of the other speakers got a bit of grace. I will try to finish in two or three minutes. In conclusion on this aspect, I strongly feel that the Opposition parties and speakers have made political capital, quite successfully, out of the unfortunate position. In brief, the legal situation appears to be that the constitutional position, as enshrined in Article 6 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, clearly favours strict separation of the powers of State between the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive. In this instance, the obtaining of a judicial review is a serious and new deviation, a precedent I would like to remind the House that in Britain where there is no written constitution down through the years there are historical examples where the High Court has been loath to interfere and has not interfered in the order of the House of Commons.
Article 15.10 of our Constitution gives power to the House in matters of Standing Orders for the regulation of its own affairs and clearly envisages that specific rights could be enjoyed by the House to act without the superintendence of the courts. It is important that we should retain that right. Here there is some sort of attempt to deprive the House and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges of that right.
Having carefully and critically analysed the procedures adopted in this case, it would seem to me that while there may have been shortcomings, which we accept, they have been created to a large extent by inadequate Standing Orders and precedents from the past, as I already mentioned, dictating how things should be done. There certainly is a serious case to be made in relation to the Cathaoirleach chairing the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and this question of involving the Cathaoirleach as far as decison making in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges is concerned. I have looked carefully at this and I think there is need for review of Standing Orders, particularly of Standing Order 69 (10) and (11). As a Senator has said, perfection frequently evolves when existing procedures fail. The situation here is a result of the failure of the system to work. There is need to review Standing Orders. By trial and error the system which the Committee on Procedure and Privileges operates, particularly under Standing Order 69, can be perfected and sorted out.
The Cathaoirleach found himself in an impossible situation. There was an error of judgment which he has confessed to and in relation to which he has unreservedly apologised. I would ask that this be accepted. The allegation made against the Cathaoirleach is not of such a substantive nature to deserve the call for his removal from the Chair. I hope the other side will understand my point of view. From whatever side, this is an ideal political opportunity to bring the House into disrespect, an ideal opportunity to attack Fianna Fáil, our Leader, and so on. I would ask Senators on the other side of the House to refrain from this. From what I have learnt from newspapers and television programmes political opportunism is emerging which I regret. There has been a mistake; it should be left at that; there has been an apology. Because of the defects in Standing Orders, because of the implications of the Constitution, the mistakes were technical and of an academic nature. I would ask that the motion be opposed for those reasons.
For me, personally, this is a sad day in the Seanad, sad for the tradition of the House, sad for the fact that it is necessary to participate in and speak to a motion such as this. As a former office holder as Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach, and with just three decades of experience to draw from, I so much regret that the tradition, the dignity and honour I have always associated with the Seanad have apparently become old fashioned and deemed redundant by those amongst us who do not consider values of truth, of honour, tradition and precedent to be relevant in the Oireachtas of the 1990s. Indeed, Senator Conroy said that such a motion as this should be tabled only on a matter of a grave nature. I would ask, does the absence of honour, of dignity and integrity, not constitute a matter of a grave nature? Those colleagues in this House whose standards have taken such a nosedive wish conveniently to forget the sacrifices, the work and the dedication of those who, over the years, were honoured to serve in this House.
Do the Government Senators realise the gravity of their action in abandoning the honour dimension traditionally part and parcel of parliamentary procedure? Did any Government Senator ask what would distinguished former colleagues of mine — I hasten to add — in the last 30 years say in this debate? How would the late Senator Tommy Mullins, a distinguished Leader of this House for many years, Senator Eoin Ryan, a distinguished Leader of this House who was held in the highest esteem by every Member of the Seanad during those years, vote this afternoon here in the Seanad? What attitude would one expect from former Cathaoirligh like the late Professor Liam Ó Buachalla, like Micheál Yeats, like Micheál Crannitch? While I do not wish to put my good friend and colleague, Senator Tras Honan, on the spot, how can she be happy to support this latest travesty in this House?
Would the distinguished former Senators mentioned be proud to defend the indefensible here this afternoon? Just imagine the reaction of the late Leader of the House and leader of the Opposition, Professor Micheál Ó hAodha, the late Ben Quigley, former Senators like Paddy Lindsay and Michael O'Higgins, Jim Dooge, a distinguished office holder here as Cathaoirleach, Leas-Chathaoirleach, Leader of the House, leader of the Opposition, Foreign Minister. Those colleagues would regard this entire sad episode with regret and, indeed, with horror.
Parliaments never get power. It is almost always most difficult to enhance the power and influence of the people's representatives. I have watched for just three decades a constant and insidious erosion of power and influence here, mainly, I might add, facilitated by the indolence or indifference of the very people who should have jealously guarded the rights, powers and privileges of elected repesentatives.
For this month Seanad Éireann, its Members and future Members have suffered a body blow from which I believe the Oireachtas in general can never recover because the precedent is set. This is a national tragedy, at a time when in the east and the west there are many examples of a new embracing of democratic principles, of democratic systems, of people power through the ballot box, of justice through elected parliaments. Yet here we must traipse off in the opposite direction.
You, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, are presiding over a debate which is caused by the fact that the Cathaoirleach of this House has done a great disservice to the Oireachtas. The Independent Senator who, for whatever reason, was the cause of this unfortunate train of events, has cost the Oireachtas a huge price for his vanity or whatever name he cares to place on it.
The Committee on Procedure and Privileges has, to a great extent, failed to protect the House and its Members from odium and adverse publicity. This House has suffered incalculable reversal through being shown to the headline readers to be subject to the courts when, in fact, Bunreacht na hÉireann confers and defends the clear division between Parliament and the courts.
Over the past 20 years, especially, a preponderance of the Members of the Oireachtas who proved to be afraid to face difficult questions, who were cowed by the Church, who fled from the perceived public opinion, abandoned to the Supreme Court their prerogative to legislate in a number of social areas. Are we going to leave it to the courts to make all the decisions from here on?
I have, I reckon, at least a decade more experience here than any other of my colleagues in the House and it pains me to see standards drop under the guise of modernism. We, each of us, Members of this House, must accept responsibility for the dignity of Parliament.
To my certain knowledge the Joint Houses of the Oireachtas have been well and nobly served by the highly gifted and dedicated men and women who are the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas and in my personal experience as an office holder in this House, my experience as Cathaoirleach, I have always found the Clerk to be at least one step ahead in anticipating every eventuality. Expert briefings were always available to the officers of the House and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The briefings were always there. Of course, the Cathaoirleach of the day did not have to accept the advice given or the suggestions made, but it is a matter of practice that always has been there and was always to be relied on.
Any innuendo or suggestions to the contrary is an outrageous slander on our public service and I can honestly say that the dedicated service rendered to this country through the work of the Clerks and Clerks Assistants down through my years here has been of the highest standard, Clerks like Jack McGowan Smith, Jack Tobin and the present incumbent of the office, Kieran Coughlan.
Acting Chairman
I understand it is the practice not to name individuals in the House.
I bow to your ruling.
Acting Chairman
I understand it is the practice. I am so advised.
I would quite agree. However, there are at least half a dozen clerks assistant, some sadly deceased, but all of them have been dedicated and have worked here and served every Seanad in the highest tradition. If we look around for precedents, the very latest precedent of this kind occurred some 15 months when the honourable speaker of the Bundestag resigned because of the slant the press in his country put on a speech he delivered near the East German border. He resigned the next day because the headlines showed him to have said something but when the dust settled it was clearly perceived that his speech contained no offence. Yet when it was presented as such, he felt he was in honour bound to step down so as not to cause any hurt or offence to the honourable office that he occupied.
In considering this entire sorry mess each Senator must dispassionately consider the interests of the Houses of the Oireachtas and not allow personalities, friendships or loyalties to cloud the issue as the good standing of and public respect for Parliament is crucial for the conservation of a healthy democracy in our country. A Senator's first loyalty must be to our country, which can only be served by State institutions which are held in honour and respect. No price is too high to pay for freedom. We witnessed it in the last few months in Eastern Europe.
James Dillon, a former leader of my party, an honourable, distinguished parliamentarian of happy memory, often quoted from Edmund Burke and I quote, "all that is necessary for evil to prevail is that good men should do nothing."
Does any Member here not accept that politics is an honourable profession, that the honour of being elected to Parliament, irrespective of the constituency, carries with it heavy responsibilities, heavy duties based on respect, on dignity and honour? Those of us who aspire to public office are honour bound to be conscious of the nature of our work, to legislate for and on behalf of the citizens.
There is no place in that work for dual standards. The Constitution names the Cathaoirleach as ranking third constitutional office holder in this State. The order is: His Excellency the President, the Honourable Ceann Comhairle, the Cathaoirleach and the Chief Justice. So, I would put the question, should we knowingly maintain in an office of this constitutional importance a person about whom the media and, indeed, many people pose questions? The Cathaoirleach of this House must be of such disposition that he or she is his or her person reflects the honour and dignity of the position both at home and abroad and the very fact that questions have been raised is, to my mind, enough to disqualify a person from this post which it is impossible effectively to carry out without the confidence, without the loyalty, trust, esteem and support of the Members of all sides of the House.
The greatest difficulty in my experience as Cathaoirleach was to get reelected while diligently following the unpolitical nature of the post and during my period in office I absented myself from parliamentary party meetings and from political activities, attendance at which is generally accepted as necessary for reelections all my predecessors had done. I faithfully followed the precedents and tradition handed down. I had to work hard to ensure that every Member was treated with equality and even-handed justice. For some time I have held the view that out-going Cathaoirligh should be returned at least as one of the 11 in the absence of a constitutional amendment to treat the office in the same manner as that of Ceann Comhairle. That, at least, would remove the temptation of excuse from the Cathaoirleach of the day to engage in political controversy.
On mature reflection, having regard to the cavalier fashion in which the Cathaoirleach handled, or mishandled, this whole affair having regard to the great disservice done to the Oireachtas, I must regretfully find that I am in conscience bound to support the motion and I would appeal to the Government Senators to put this House first and to do likewise.
An an individual who, to an extent, was indirectly involved in this particular issue as a person who went on the delegation to Nicaragua, I want to make a few brief comments, not, could I hasten to add, to justify my attendance on the delegation to Nicaragua, because it is a matter of record that I was duly selected in accordance with proper procedures.
I would first of all like to direct some remarks at my learned Independent Senators. Senator Murphy passed a remark that the Fianna Fáil grouping — to paraphrase him — did not like the Independent Senators and I think he said they were afraid of them. He may be right but that applies to far more in this House than the Fianna Fáil grouping. It may not be on record but it is the view of a substantial number of Senators that the Independent Senators are causing mayhem in this House. I have listened on numerous occasions to sanctimonious clap-trap and all sorts of statements that they are the protectors of this House; they are the people who are the preservers of all the rules and regulations that are made within this House. At the same time and hand in hand they spew venom at every opportunity that they get to do so.
Senator John A. Murphy made a remark — I would accept it as a flippant remark if it came from any other individual; coming from him it was a rather cynical remark. He mentioned last week or the week before that if he had gone to Nicaragua none of this problem would have arisen in the first place. Of course, he very conveniently neglected to mention that it would not have risen if Senator Norris had done the right thing and had not made the allegations that he did make. I will ask Senator Norris a direct question because it is important that we get the facts of the situation as they happened at that time. Some things have not been mentioned in this House to date. For the record, I came into this House on Thursday, 8 February. At that time Senator Norris had indicated that he was going to call for a division on the Order of Business and I quote:
I wish to move an amendment on the Order of Business. The amendment I wish to move is that item No. 58 on the Supplementary Order Paper be taken first today because a properly convened democratic meeting of the Interparliamentary Union was subverted by a reconvened meeting which altered the composition of the delegation to exclude all representation from the Seanad. It is a matter of particular regret to me that this motion was proposed by you, a Chathaoirleach.
That is a report of that meeting. When the vote was called and I arrived in here I went to the Chair and asked what was the vote for. Senator Avril Doyle happened to be there at the same time. I was told that Senator Norris had caused a vote on the Order of Business because there was no Senator going to Nicaragua. I said, "But there is a Senator going to Nicaragua". The Cathaoirleach asked me who was going and I said "I am going". Senator Doyle and the Cathaoirleach asked me why I did not tell Senator Norris. I hope that Senator Doyle will verify this. I said "It is not up to me to inform Senator Norris exactly what the procedures in this House are". I saw no responsibility on me to do that. If Senator Norris wished to go ahead and do whatever he wished to do, that was none of my business.
I will ask him a question at this stage. The minutes of the Interparliamentary Union of 10 January and 24 January were available, if he wished to avail of them. Remember, he made this allegation on 8 February. If he wished to substantiate what he was saying all he had to do was to clarify the position in relation to what happened. When the vote was taken — I am glad that Senator Norris is here — I said to Senator Norris in the Chamber "You were foolish to cause that vote" and he said "why?" I said "Because there is a Senator going to Nicaragua" and Senator Norris said "I do not know anything about that." I told him I knew about it and if he had taken the opportunity to check with the IPU he would have found out that I was going to Nicaragua. I see Senator Norris is shaking his head. I am asking him a direct question. Did I or did I not on that morning state exactly to him that he was wrong in calling a vote because there was a Senator going to Nicaragua? It is up to the Senator to answer that question for his own benefit. All I could take from it was that because Senator Norris was wrong in what he did, he was like a spoiled child who could not get what he wanted; he rushed off and decided he would take this matter much further.
I am very sorry that the circumstances have come to this. I will readily admit that it is a sad day for me. I regret that this motion is down here today. I regret that the Cathaoirleach did not make available the legal opinion that he had to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
It has been mentioned here on numerous occasions that no one should be a judge in his own case. It is important for the record that we point out that the Cathaoirleach was not acting as a judge. I asked members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges if he took the decision as to what should be done. As I understand it, that is what a judge does. A judge will pass sentence. I asked, did the Cathaoirleach on that occasion pass sentence on Senator Norris or was it a decision of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges? He chaired the meeting but he did not pass sentence. In actual fact, the sentence that was passed was a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I would say that, irrespective of whether the Cathaoirleach, Senator Seán Doherty, was in Hong King, Tanganika, or even in Nicaragua the Committee on Procedure and Privileges would have come up with the same conclusion as it did on that occasion. It may not have come up with the same recommendation on that occasion. But, in view of the facts that are before us, Senator Norris was in serious breach of privilege. I think I have proved here today exactly what the position is and it is important that we would know what the position is — that Senator Norris was in serious breach of privilege. I am absolutely disgusted that a man of such ability, a renowned person in the community, would not have common courtesy and common sense. When he was told in this Chamber that there was a Senator going to Nicaragua — and the basis of his motion was that no Senator was going to Nicaragua — Senator Norris did not see fit to apologise.
It has been suggested that the Cathaoirleach should have recommended that the Senator should have been suspended or that the matter be taken to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. If Senator Norris holds this House in the high esteem that he and all the Independent Senators claim, there is something he should have done. He may say it is easy for me to say this. If I found that I was at fault in such circumstances I would have asked the Chair's indulgence and would have said, "A Chathaoirligh, I withdraw that allegation because I was wrong".
It takes a good man to say that he was wrong. The Cathaoirleach has admitted that he was wrong. He made an error of judgment but the sequences that have led up to it, as far as I am concerned, are far more serious than what went on in relation to the Cathaoirleach. It is very important that the people who claim to uphold the solemn dignity of this House at every opportunity decide to pull it down. They are an absolute disgrace. They vie with one another on every occasion on the Order of Business. I accept Senator Murphy's position in relation to the contribution they make to legislation and I compliment them on that. There is no doubt that they make a fantastic contribution in that area. But will they deny that at every opportunity on the Order of Business they vie with one another for publicity? There was a situation not long ago where two of you people——
Acting Chairman
I would ask the Senator to direct his remarks to the Chair.
Sorry. Through the Chair, could I say that not too long ago they spent four hours competing with one another on a particular matter to see which of them would outdo the other. Those individuals are the ones who purport to uphold the solid institutions of the House. An important fact has been mentioned on a number of occasions and I want to reiterate it now: the Cathaoirleach was in conflict with the Independent Senators because he tried to bring some order into the situation. I do not know whether the Independent Senators would accept that fact or not or whether it is because of the procedures we have here that there is a difficulty in relation to the Order of Business. Be that as it may, the fact is that the Cathaoirleach had difficulty with the Independent Senators because they continued to disrupt the Order of Business at every opportunity. Now the same people who have, ad nauseum, continued in that vein are the people who purport to be the protectors of the House.
By going to the courts, as a Senator, Senator Norris has done tremendous disservice to the Oireachtas because it is of paramount importance that the Oireachtas and the Judiciary should be completely separate. Unfortunately, Senator Norris saw fit to take this matter to the courts. I am asking him a simple question through you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh: does he suggest for one minute that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges were such a band of woebegone individuals that when this misjudgment of the Cathaoirleach came to light they would not have seen that there was some form of injustice done and would not have taken it upon themselves to reconvene in order to deal with the matter, as will have to be done with the passage of time? He did not think that his colleagues in this Chamber were capable — if that is the proper word — of dealing with this matter and that with the passage of time he would get a fair hearing of the issue. He has opened a can of worms in the sense that the Judiciary and the Houses of the Oireachtas are drawn into conflict. That is a very serious matter.
Finally, in relation to the delegation the documents were available to Senator Norris if he wished to avail of them. That is important. In relation to the delegation to Nicaragua the last decision was taken on 24 January. He asked for the motion to be taken on 8 February. To paraphrase the minutes, they stated that after a discussion had taken place there was a proposal by Deputy Tunney that the meeting should be suspended to enable the Minister of State, Deputy Brady, and Deputies Enright, Howlin and Byrne, to confer privately to see if an agreed solution could be found to the difficulty. The meeting was then suspended. When the meeting was reconvened, Deputy Brady, Minister of State, proposed that four observers be nominated, two from Fianna Fáil, one from Fine Gael and one from The Labour Party. The proposal was agreed to, Deputy Eric Byrne dissenting. It was also agreed that the observers should depart from Ireland on Thursday, 22 February and leave Nicaragua on Tuesday, 27 February. That is fact. They are the minutes of the IPU meeting to which Senator Norris refers in the sense that he stated specifically that no Senator was to go to Nicaragua. He was totally wrong. What has happened is that the very serious allegations he made have been totally pushed into the background. They are very serious allegations. He must know in his heart that he was wrong. But, having accepted that and having been asked here in this Chamber to say that he was wrong, he had not the guts to do that. That is the issue which I think is at stake here.
Unfortunately, the Cathaoirleach made an error of judgment. Everybody accepts that the Cathaoirleach should have brought the senior counsel's opinion to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Unfortunately, he did not do that. He has unreservedly apologised for not doing that and I do not think it is a case for his dismissal.
Senator McKenna has ballyragged my colleague, Senator Norris, for some time. Senator Norris is here and he is listening to the ballyragging. I would like to know where the Cathaoirleach, Senator Seán Doherty, is. I am sorry he is not here.
On a point of order, they cannot have it both ways. There was a big to do at the beginning of this meeting to the effect that the Cathaoirleach should not be present.
If you bear with me I will explain. If you did not interrupt me so quickly——
He decided then that he would leave the Chamber and now he is being accused of not being here. The Senator cannot have it both ways.
Acting Chairman
Senator Norris has an opportunity to defend himself.
I am sure he has and he will do so most ably.
Is it in order for Senator Hederman to refer to the absence of a Senator?
Acting Chairman
It is not in order, I am advised.
I think I made the point, I will pass on. Senator McKenna also spoke at some length about how the University Senators were intent at all costs on getting publicity and a Fianna Fáil Senator mentioned that at the start of every sitting on Wednesday at 2.30 p.m. Senators Ross and Norris vied with each other to see who could get the most publicity. I would like to make it clear that I am not vying with Senators Ross and Norris for publicity. I always set myself realistic targets.
I have no stomach for this debate but I feel an obligation on me to say what my opinion is, because so far I have not spoken. I would like to compliment Senators Ryan and Ross on their introductory speeches in which they very courageously said some harsh things which had to be said. I am glad they said them and I endorse and support everything they said. I am glad that the onus did not fall on me. I hope if it had, that I would have had the courage to speak out in the way they did.
Senator Ryan mentioned that he found some satisfaction from his work in the Seanad and I would like, as a new Senator, to say that I was just starting to find some satisfaction and to feel that in spite of its many failings and problems this Chamber did have a function. I am sorry to say, however, that with this recent debacle the aspect of the Seanad, as I thought of it, as non-confrontational has sadly disappeared.
I do not intend to comment on what took place at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges meeting or the IPU. I was not at either of the meetings and I found it extremely difficult to get information. I did, however, have circulated to me at an early stage a memo from Deputy Eric Byrne, 15 minutes after he emerged from the meeting. It was on that basis that I am quite satisfied Senator Norris is in order, that he is correct and I am supporting him.
But, that is not what is at issue today and I believe we all know that. My colleagues on the Fianna Fáil benches must have recourse to spending their time debating those aspects because it is difficult for them to face what are the real aspects of today's debate. Those who did touch on it made it quite clear, and it seems there are two very important issues. One is not what was in the opinion of the senior counsel, as my learned friend from Kerry said a few moments ago, whether he agreed or did not agree with it, I do not think that is the point——
Acting Chairman
From Cork.
I apologise, from Cork. What is important is — we all know it and there is no good hedging on the issue — that the opinion was elicited and presumably when the Cathaoirleach allowed the Clerk of the Seanad to get that opinion he got the impression that the Clerk was assisting him and that that opinion would show everything was in order. When it did not show that the Cathaoirleach had behaved in the way he should have, he made his decision.
I cannot accept or understand why people should speak about an error of judgment. An error of judgment is where you intend to do the right thing, are intent on doing what is correct but make a slip. This cannot be the interpretation of what happened and that was clearly elucidated by Senator Ross at the start of this debate. There is no question of a simple, small error of judgment which any of us could make, which each of us probably makes more than once a day over an issue. That is not what is at issue here. A Senator from Fianna Fáil asked some moments ago, what possible interest could Senator Doherty have for keeping the opinion of the senior counsel secret. If he wants me to say it, it was to save his skin. It is as simple as that. He just felt that by keeping this secret, it would not come out, that the whole thing would fizzle away, that Senator Norris would be the scapegoat and that everything would be in order.
There is a second thing which I find utterly and totally revolting. It has been said, and I am glad, by many other speakers that the Clerk of this Seanad, a civil servant of the highest integrity and held in the highest affection was implicated. From the day I was elected a Senator I was told of the assistance and wise advice I would receive from the Clerk of the Seanad. In my innocence, until a few hours ago, I believed that that would rankle so much with the Members of the Fianna Fáil Party that they would not be prepared to do down one man to save another. That is what I believed would happen. I believed they would come in here and that the Cathaoirleach would not continue in the Chair. I am utterly disgusted and disappointed by that aspect of the proceedings.
I would like to make one reference to the fatuous remarks which have been made about the unfortunate Senator Doherty who was stuck in the Chair because Standing Orders precluded him from vacating it. It is perfectly clear that there is provision in Standing Orders for the Cathaoirleach, when in the Seanad, to vacate the Chair and for the Leas-Chathaoirleach or some other Senator to take his place. There is nothing in the Standing Order which said he was obliged to stay in the Chair. There is nothing there that says he could not stand down. Perhaps those who framed the Standing Orders never envisaged the horrible, disgusting situation which has arisen and did not make specific provision but there is clearly nothing to prevent him standing down. That seems quite clear.
I am amused by the comments or suggestions that the press has villified Senator Doherty and took an unseemly interest in the whole proceedings. I think it was Senator Fallon who said if it had been he or any other Senator this would have been a mere trivial episode which would have been passed over rapidly. Whose fault is that? It is not our fault. You would think it was the fault of the people on these benches that Senator Doherty has the reputation that he has. None of us gave him that reputation. It is not our fault he has a reputation. The sad thing is, as has been said before by a Member on our benches — perhaps it was a Progressive Democrats Senator who said it — that the mistake was made the first day we came in here and the Cathaoirleach was elected to the Chair. That is the situation. We are not responsible. All I can say is, thank God we have a free press, that they cannot be muzzled or told what to write about and what not to write about. At least we have that on our side.
I believe every Senator believes in democracy. We live in a democratic State and I believe we want to continue to do so. Episodes such as this undermine that democracy. In City Hall on many occasions I have violently disagreed with a decision that was taken. I disliked it but as soon as that decision was taken I accepted it was the democratic decision of the city council and I would move heaven and earth to see that decision was implemented by the city manager.
It is important that democracy prevails. There are many countries where democracy does not prevail. If we want it to prevail we have to give it a chance. It is an interesting situation — it may have dawned on everybody else a long time ago; I only worked the figures out this afternoon — but if it is possible in this Chamber for 44 people to wish the Cathaoirleach to resign, who would vote for the Cathaoirleach to resign if they were given a free vote and only 16 could be on his side and because of the system which is operated by the party and the party Whip, what should be a democratic decision can be upturned.
Lest you be puzzled, I will briefly explain. There are 31 Members of Fianna Fáil and there are two in the Chamber now. We know some of them are unhappy about this decision, about the vote they are going to have to take. When they had their meeting, there were 31 of them present. If 16 of them voted one way and 15 voted the other, that translates when they come in here to all 31 voting. If you add that 16 to the rest of the Senators, you find that 16 are enough. That is a denial of democracy. You end up with a situation where 44 Members of this House, if allowed a free vote, could vote in support of this motion and only 16 against. That is the most tragic denial of democracy. It comes about, sadly when party takes precedence over every other consideration.
Whereas I am not a member of a political party and I try not to be sanctimonious or unctuous about it, I have great sympathy for members of political parties. I have seen it in City Hall where members have had to vote against what they believed in their heart of hearts they should vote for. However, these votes were over trivial issues, they were not of great importance, it was probably something as trivial as whether this city would be split in two with roads but they had to vote according to the party Whip. This afternoon I say to the Fianna Fáil Senators — at least to the two of them who are here now — and to you, Sir, that this is more important; this is an issue where the institutions of State are being undermined. It is time to put party in second place for once. That is something I appeal to them to do.
It is a sad situation that because of the antics which will go on later this afternoon the public become daily more cynical about politicians. Every Member of this House has to bear the brunt of that. It does not matter whether you are a University Senator, a Fine Gael Senator, a Progressive Democrats Senator or a Fianna Fáil Senator, each and every one of us is being diminished by what is going on here today and what has gone on. I bitterly resent what has happened and that is why I felt compelled to stand up here. I did not rush in to put my name to the motion; I put it down yesterday. I thought long and hard, but nothing could restrain me from doing so when I realised what was happening and what was afoot.
Fatuous comments have been made about mayhem in this Chamber since this session got under way. What is causing this mayhem? I was not here last year but I understand that in the past things proceeded in an orderly manner. Who is creating the mayhem? Would the Fianna Fáil Senators ask themselves that question instead of throwing it at us as though we were the culprits?
Finally, those of us who spoke today made an effort to persuade our colleagues, after listening to reasonable arguments on one side or the other, that they would make up their minds as to what way they are going to vote. I think it is sad that now on the Fianna Fáil side there is one Member sitting there — there are not so many here either, I will admit — but we are in a situation where I had hoped earlier, when I heard the contributions of Senator Ross and Senator Ryan, that even at that late stage the Cathaoirleach, having heard those very cogent arguments, might be prevailed on, that he might be in some way persuaded by those arguments to resign and to do the dignified thing which would restore his dignity and restore our dignity and restore the dignity of this Chamber. I had hoped that. When he left the Chamber I then turned my hopes and my aspirations to the possibility that perhaps the debate would have some bearing on the Fianna Fáil Members who were here listening to it and that they would be convinced——
Acting Chairman
May I remind the Senator that she has one minute remaining.
I assure you that I will be finished in less than one minute. I just think that it is a sad day for the Seanad and it is a sad day for democracy. I make one last appeal to our honourable Fianna Fáil colleague, the Lord Mayor, to try to prevail on his colleagues to prevail on the Cathaoirleach to do the honourable thing, to do the dignified thing and to save the dignity of this House.
I rise to support the motion. Indeed, as has been said, Fine Gael tabled their own motion of no confidence in the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad but we waited until after last week's meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to hear a personal explanation from the Cathaoirleach of the events that had unfolded over the bank holiday weekend. We thought it was more appropriate, given that expressions of natural justice and constitutional justice were in the air, to at least hear Senator Doherty's own views of what had happened and what had unfolded before we tabled our motion of no confidence. Hence, ours was tabled a day later than the Independents, but indeed we will be supporting it as both motions are effectively the same.
An interesting point for historical accuracy is this. Despite the fact that five Fianna Fáil Senators have spoken here this afternoon, the statement of the Cathaoirleach has not actually been put on the record of this House. The Cathaoirleach did attempt to do that last Thursday, but events fell against him and Standing Orders apparently were not in order for him. In any case he did not get the opportunity to do so. I feel as it is only one page of A4 that, for the record of the House and for historical accuracy, the Cathaoirleach's statement should be on the record of Seanad Éireann and I will very quickly read it into it. It is headed "Statement by Senator Seán Doherty, Cathaoirleach Seanad Éireann, to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on Thursday, 22nd March 1990." It is slightly ironic that I should find myself in this position, but I think it is important that it be done for the sake of accuracy. The Cathaoirleach goes on to say in his statement, and I am quoting exactly:
I was contacted by car phone on Friday the 9th of March by the Clerk of the Seanad seeking my approval to obtain an opinion.
On Tuesday afternoon the 13th March I received a copy of opinion by FAX at my home. Shortly afterwards I phoned the Clerk of the Seanad and stated to him that I did not believe the opinion to be relevant because decisions had already been taken by the Committee and consequently I proposed to ignore the opinion.
The opinion was not discussed between myself and the Clerk until Monday the 19th when we met with Counsel. During that meeting with Counsel I realised for the first time that the opinion was obtained by the Clerk on behalf of the Committee even though the Committee had not formally requested it. Afterwards I was satisfied that the Clerk of the Seanad believed I had exercised my discretion not to bring the opinion to the Committee, when I had said earlier in the week that I proposed to ignore the opinion, on the basis that I considered it irrelevant because the committee had already taken decisions.
On Tuesday the 20th of March I informed the Committee of the fact that the opinion had been obtained and that a meeting with Counsel had taken place the previous day. This was the first opportunity I had to give this information to the Committee. The information was given by me to the Committee without it being requested by any member of the Committee. There was no intention on my part to mislead the Committee or the Seanad. The matter for decision by the Committee was what action should be taken against Senator Norris for making unfounded allegations against the Cathaoirleach and of being in breach of privilege, which barring one dissension had the unanimous support of all members of the Committee.
And I depart here briefly, "barring one dissension" the decision had the support of all members of Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It had the support of the Labour Party member of Committee on Procedure and Privileges also, despite impressions given to the contrary here this afternoon in that party's contribution. I will continue quoting from the Cathaoirleach:
Whether or not the Cathaoirleach presided would not have altered the end result. The Committee had already adjudicated on the matter prior to opinion being sought, and the subsequent meeting was simply to decide on the action to be taken against Senator Norris for failing to comply with recommendations of the Committee, i.e. to withdraw allegations in the House at the first available opportunity, which he refused or neglected to do. At this stage the opinion in my view was merely of academic value and accordingly when I ignored it I did so in good faith and so informed the Clerk of the Seanad.
I now accept there was in this instance an error of judgment on my part in not bringing the opinion to the Committee and for that I apologise unreservedly to the Committee.
For historical accuracy, I repeat, I would like that to be on the record of the Seanad.
Fianna Fáil contributions have referred to the situation here this afternoon and that really the situation was not grave enough for a motion of no confidence in the Chair to be moved. The situation we find ourselves in here this afternoon is without precedent — a motion of no confidence in the Cathaoirleach of Seanad Éireann. I consider, and Fine Gael consider that the reasons this motion is being tabled and the reason we tabled our motion are sufficiently grave for full support of this House to the motion this afternoon. We have heard the explanation of the Cathaoirleach as to why he did not give senior counsel's opinion to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges which was at that time investigating allegations by Senator David Norris. The length of time discussing what Senator Norris said and why he said it and what happened about the Nicaraguan trip and so on are really irrelevant; they are only peripherally relevant to this afternoon, because we are now talking about how Senator Doherty as Cathaoirleach handled senior counsel's opinion that had been given for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The rest will be dealt with on another occasion, may I venture to suggest. It is just what we have referred to now as the Norris affair.
Senator Hederman mentioned that any other Senator finding themselves in the same position would have been handled differently by the Press. I do not think so. Any other Senator would have resigned if they had made such a monumental error of judgment as the Cathaoirleach made in relation to his handling of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I stated before — and my colleague, Senator Manning, has made a similar statement — that I feel betrayed by Senator Doherty's handling of this situation. When he was elected Cathaoirleach we fully accepted the democratic decision of this House of Parliament and fully cooperated with him in the Chair for the last five or six months, and I think he would ageee with that too. We have had our differences across the House, we have had our differences with the Independent Senators, I have even been in argument at times with the Chair. But I think he will accept that we fully accepted him as the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad and respected him in his position, and that goes without saying for all my colleagues in Fine Gael here today.
Senator Manning, Senator Naughten and myself — the three Fine Gael members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges — fully supported the decision we came to at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in relation to what is now referred to as the Norris affair. We fully supported the Cathaoirleach in relation to what are referred to as the allegations of Senator David Norris. We were not privy to any senior counsel's opinion, we did not know it existed initially, but we fully supported the Cathaoirleach. There can be no question of any attempt to vilify or to look at past records at all. Notwithstanding anything that happened before he became Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, we were supporting him unreservedly in relation to the Norris affair. I think he will support that, too. So, anyone trying to pretend that there is villification or political nastiness of any kind involved in our motion, or in our supporting the motion before us today, is totally out of order, and I would like that to be accepted by Fianna Fáil. I think the Fianna Fáil members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will accept that we behaved very fairly towards the Cathaoirleach in relation to the issue that was before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
I would like to put it to the Fianna Fáil Members particularly that we are not just talking about the position of Cathaoirleach here. The person who holds the position of Cathaoirleach of the Seanad is a member of the Council of State, perhaps the most prestigious body within the Constitution of this country.
The Cathaoirleach in this case, the Ceann Comhairle and, indeed, the Chief Justice, are the three persons who take over the role of Presidency in the event of an interregnum between Presidents, in a situation where the President might have died or resigned for whatever reason. They are the three most prestigious officers of the land. I think as parliamentarians, as people who have regularly to put ourselves before the people for election — some more successful than others on different occasions — we all understand what is meant by the dignity of office, by upholding the honour of Parliament, by the importance of not lending any credence to the cynicism in which a growing majority of the electorate hold parliamentarians generally, to the growing cynicism in which the public hold Seanad Éireann particularly.
In my few months in this House I have defended the relevance of this House to the Irish parliamentary system. I consider it has a most important contribution to make. It can make a greater contribution; it needs reforming and tightening up — but not as much as might appear. Inefficiency is one of the greatest reasons we are held in disrepute. There is some reform needed, but let us tighten up, let us be efficient and let us order our business constructively and relevantly to the issues of the day outside these Houses. We could have our MEPs in here accounting to their Irish constituents. We could welcome our Northern brothers and sisters to our Seanad Chamber for an interchange on Anglo-Irish issues. So much more could be done. Yet, tragically, we find ourselves here debating, as has never been done in this Chamber since the inception of the Seanad, and requesting the removal of the Cathaoirleach from office for a very good reason.
The majority of Members of this House no longer have confidence in the Cathaoirleach to be able to handle the work of this House in an impartial, fair and frank way. He betrayed our confidence. He betrayed my confidence by refusing to let me, my colleagues and members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges see a most relevant opinion from senior counsel in relation to the procedure in investigating the Norris affair. The reason he did not circulate it was because senior counsel's opinion suggested that he should not be in the Chair. As this has already appeared in the press, we should quote directly from a couple of relevant passages of the senior counsel's opinion. Senior counsel gave his written opinion, which had to be wrung out of the Cathaoirleach at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Senator O'Toole on the day in question asked if there was a written opinion. I asked three times whether we could see the written opinion. In the end, we had to suspend the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for 15 minutes to get photocopies of the written opinion so that we could study it. The Cathaoirleach mentioned briefly in passing at the commencement of the meeting that he had got either legal or counsel's opinion — I am not sure of the words — because he knew it was about to be pursued, but he was not forthcoming with a copy of the written opinion until we chased it out of him. This is why he did not want us to see it, even though he alluded briefly to the fact that he had had a word in someone's ear, or casually spoke to some legal person. Senior counsel stated in paragraph 7 of the opinion: "Senator David Norris and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges"— it is entitled "Opinion of the Chief State Solicitor's Office"— there is no doubt that this opinion was for the committee — that:
It appears to me that it was inappropriate for the Cathaoirleach to preside over the inquiry as to the veracity or otherwise of Senator Norris's allegation.
In paragraph 9, senior counsel goes on to say:
I would recommend that the committee reconvenes.
The counsel did not say "I recommend that the Cathaoirleach do so-and-so, "or" I recommend that the Clerk tell the Cathaoirleach to do so-and-so". Counsel was under the clear impression he was advising the committee and all his paragraphs include references to the committee. Paragraph 9 states: "I would recommend that the committee reconvene with the Cathaoirleach being present and not in the Chair"— that was dealt with in paragraph 7 —"and rehears the evidence available". In other words, we were getting a clear legal opinion that our procedure in coming to a decision on the Norris affair was not in order with either constitutional justice or natural justice. Yet the Cathaoirleach decided that that was irrelevant to the conclusion we came to. That is an appalling betrayal of confidence, an appalling betrayal of Members of this House, and I am afraid anyone capable of a misjudgment of that magnitude must not be capable of holding office.
The Cathaoirleach is a member of the Council of State. He is a member of the triumvirate that takes over in the event of an interregnum between Presidents.
He is an adviser on constitutional matters.
He is an adviser on constitutional matters. I wonder would all the advice be made available to those who might be interested. Would the President get the advice he would be looking for or would it be selectively handed to the President if it fitted what Senator Doherty wanted the President to hear? It did not suit Senator Doherty to let the Committee on Procedure and Privileges hear what the senior counsel's opinion was, so he suppressed it from us.
Standing Orders have been mentioned. Senator Fallon builds the thrust of his contribution here this afternoon on Standing Order 69. He said that Senator Doherty could have done nothing else, that he had to be in the Chair, that it says so in Standing Order 69. May I refer you, Sir, to Standing Order 11, which precedes and predates Standing Order 69 in this little bible, the Standing Orders of Seanad Éireann, 1979. I quote from Standing Order 11:
During the absence of the Cathaoirleach through illness or other cause...
I would imagine the Members drawing up Standing Orders never envisaged a situation where they would be moving a motion for the resignation of the Cathaoirleach but the expression "or other cause" is there. It states:
During the absence of the Cathaoirleach through illness or other cause the Leas-Chathaoirleach shall perform the duties devolving upon and exercise the authority conferred upon the Cathaoirleach by these Standing Orders.
In Standing Order 11 there is a means by which Senator Doherty, if he so wished, to prevent him being a judge in his own case, could have stood down from the chairmanship of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. He need not have stood by Standing Order 69 because Standing Order 11 allowed him, because of the "other cause" that had arisen, to step out of the Chair and let the Leas-Chathaoirleach chair the meeting, or indeed any other body could be appointed Leas-Chathaoirleach for the occasion. That argument does not stand up.
Acting Chairman
I am afraid the Senator's time has expired.
May I ask you for a little tolerance? We have been fairly fair with one another on both sides this evening.
Acting Chairman
Of course, I will be very happy to accommodate the Senator.
Thank you. I will resist the temptation to make clichéd statements — albeit the fact that they are clichés, they are still very important. A very honourable politician from your side of the House, through the Chair, who regrettably is no longer with us — I wonder where he would be sitting if he was — made a statement about low standards in high places. I am afraid we are talking about low standards in high places. We all make mistakes. We are all prone to errors of judgment. But us mere mortals, who just sit on these benches, are not up in the exalted position of Cathaoirleach of one of the Houses of Parliament. There is no room for errors of the magnitude that we have seen in the last few weeks. There is no room for confidence in a Cathaoirleach who can betray Members like we were betrayed.
May I refer to the fact that the Taoiseach's distancing himself from the shenannigans of the Seanad at the moment bears closer examination? We must remind ourselves that the Cathaoirleach was a former cabinet colleague of Charles J. Haughey. One must question and look very closely at why he is now distancing himself from the difficulties in which his former Cabinet colleague finds himself. If Fianna Fáil collectively insist on opposing the motion before us, they are individually endorsing the Cathaoirleach's error of judgment; and the Taoiseach, as Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, is endorsing the error of judgment if he has not instructed and advised his colleagues in this House to do otherwise.
Acting Chairman
May I remind the Senator that when making references to the Taoiseach she should make such references to the Taoiseach rather than naming the individual concerned, please.
Certainly. I hope I did not offend your sensitivity by referring to the Taoiseach as Charles J. Haughey.
Acting Chairman
I am only attempting to maintain protocol.
I accept that and I take that correction 100 per cent. The point I am making — and I think it is very important — is that the Taoiseach's distancing himself from the difficulties of his former Cabinet colleague and his lack of obvious direction to his own Members in this House, including the eight of his 11 nominees who will not be supporting the motion, means that he must take responsibility as well and that he is endorsing the error of judgment of the Cathaoirleach. That is a very important factor. He cannot wash his hands of what has been happening in this House by a former colleague of his own.
Acting Chairman
I am afraid, Senator, your conclusion would need to be very brief indeed.
I am concluding now, Sir. I will conclude immediately. I would appeal to Fianna Fáil, knowing the tribal reaction that happens in all political parties with the whipping system, to consider carefully and not oppose the motion that is before us here. I would appeal finally to the Cathaoirleach, if I may, to consider his position again. I appealed last week to Senator Norris to withdraw. I appealed because of whatever doubts there might have been of the accuracy of the words he used. I am asking the Cathaoirleach, Senator Seán Doherty, please, in view of the error of judgment, to uphold what dignity is left and to salvage his own honour and dignity by resigning and not putting this House into a position where we have to take sides and vote on the motion before us requesting his resignation through no confidence. I appeal to the Cathaoirleach to consider that, even at this eleventh hour, no vote and no taking sides would salvage the dignity of this House and the dignity of the office of the Cathaoirleach. That is what I would like to see him do even at this late hour in the day.
Acting Chairman
May I say, before I call the next speaker, that I have allowed Senator Doyle quite a substantial latitude in her contribution. She has exceeded her time by almost five minutes. I do not wish to set that as a precedent. I hope the House will understand, in order to give those who are offering an opportunity to contribute. I now call on Senator Costello.
I must point out I am only the second Labour Senator to speak so far. In fact, I have missed out on the order due to some indiscretion from previous chairholders.
Acting Chairman
It is rather unfortunate I was not in the Chair, Senator. I would not have allowed that to happen.
I know that. You would not do anything of that nature. As the Leader of the Labour group has indicated, the Labour Party will be supporting this motion. Again, the reasons have been stated, basically along the lines of failure to disclose the relevant legal advice that was given, the poor judgment, the error of judgment which has been admitted already by the Cathaoirleach and the issue of dragging an official of this House into the dispute. Let me say at this point in time that we in the Labour Party fully support the independence and the position of the Clerk of the Seanad and that, if any matter of that nature should arise, we would be very anxious to assert the position of the Clerk in relation to it.
I would like to refer, firstly, to the remarks made by Senator Doyle that the Labour Party supported the expulsion of Senator Norris in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The position, as I understand, was that our representative was opposed to any sanctions being imposed and——
No.
I will ask. Later on our representative will be speaking and he will have an opportunity of explaining it himself.
A lot of the debate that has already taken place I have been somewhat concerned about. It has been what would be described, considering the amount of Latin that has been passed around the House today, as the argumentum ad hominum— it has been directed at the person rather than the actual cause or issues. I think now that the Cathaoirleach has left the Chair he himself should be in a position to reply where he might feel that some of that argument has been directed in a personal capacity rather than addressing the actual issues involved.
Likewise, might I say in relation to Senator Norris, who is not in any sense for judgment before the House at the present time — his case will come up later — that a lot of vitriolic remarks are being made which indeed could prejudice reasonable hearing in his case. That is a fairly serious matter that has come up in the course of this debate as well. He does not have the opportunity of responding to them.
Central to a lot of the remarks that have been made here is the question — it has been referred to again and again — that we are in something of a constitutional crisis, that what has happened here was striking at the roots of democracy, that the independence of the Oireachtas is at stake, the question of the separation of powers. What exists in relation to the Oireachtas and the Seanad is that it has certain constitutional privileges. It has got a Committee on Procedure and Privileges to order its business and it is entitled to do that. However, it must order its business in accordance with due process. We cannot be too protective of privilege. We are not entitled to establish privilege. We are entitled to administer our affairs only in accordance with the law of the land. I do not believe that there is a constitutional crisis at stake here at all. We are bound in relation to the law of the land other than where there is specific privilege stated. We cannot abuse privilege. We must use due process and fair play in the ordering and in the procedures that we adopt. So, I think that a lot of what has been said in relation to this attack on the independence of the House and the roots of democracy is all poppycock.
I would like to direct my remarks to the general context of what we are talking about rather than the specifics of the issue, which are being dealt with to a very large extent, and in that context to decide whether or not this is a good day or a bad day for the House. It has been described in either context. It is, on the one hand, a terrible day, a scandalous day, for the House; on the other hand it is said that there will be certain benefits to be gained. I, as a new Senator coming to the House, came in with certain expectations and I cannot say that those expectations have been realised. I know that the Seanad has parallel powers to the Dáil. But I have found in practice that those powers have been largely curtailed by the rules and by the operation of this House. We have been turned into — at least since I have come into this House I would describe it as largely a glorified talking shop.
We cannot initiate legislation. We have been told that if we put forward Private Members' Bills they will not be allowed to go through. We have been told to stop putting motions on the Order Paper because they will not be discussed. Amendments are stonewalled by the Ministers when we are addressing legislation. The guillotine is imposed on legislation. By and large, we get junior Ministers here or Ministers who are not related to the Department we are discussing. I could quote the Companies Bill, which was stonewalled and which was guillotined. I could quote the Social Welfare Bill that has to go through all Stages on Friday. The Derelict Sites Bill is the only Bill where there has been any decent level of debate allowed.
In that context is it not reasonable that there is considerable frustration among Members of this House who feel that they have a job to do in relation to legislation and that they are not allowed do that job? That is the context in which we are talking about the development of the issues that are before us at the moment. A lot of that is due to the structures. We have a situation where, between all county councillors, Senators, incoming Senators, or rather outgoing Senators and incoming TDs, fewer than a thousand people represent the entire franchise. On top of that we have 11 nominees appointed by the Taoiseach. We saw the circumstances in which they were appointed this time round. So what we have got in the Seanad is a number of professional Senators — largely, the Independent Group and a few others — a large body of birds of passage who are hoping to go to the other House and, finally, those who are going out to grass who have been perhaps in the other House.
This House, then, is basically a rubber stamp. That is the way the Government wants it and that is the way the Government has it. Instead of having an Upper House here we have got a hot house, and that is at the root of our problems here — a frustrated House which is more, I would say, a hot house rather than a proper legislative Upper House that too is reflected in the media which I feel obliged to say deals largely with the Order of Business, and come 3 p.m. or 3.30 p.m. the media are gone and the nitty gritty, the substance and the nuts and bolts of legislation are never covered by the media. That does not help affairs. A lot of the froth of what is happening here rather than the substance is covered in the newspapers. I do not like saying that but that is what happens, and when we spend hours trying to improve legislation, putting amendments through hour after hour, there will not be one single sentence about it in the newspapers the following day. That is not the proper way to treat the second House of the Oireachtas.
I have no doubt that Senator Doherty will win this vote. However, it will be a pyrrhic victory because almost 50 per cent of the House will have indicated their dissatisfaction, their disappointment in his position as Cathaoirleach and what we will end up with I am afraid is a war of attrition where there are more problems and less business dealt with in this House. We will find it harder to get to the substance of legislation; we will find it harder to deal with matters that concern us here and abroad and we will find that the moral authority of the House has been reduced.
Senator Murphy referred to the need for a new arrangement or a get together in the House. I believe that we need a new dispensation. We need a new agreement that we are concerned with this House being parallel to the Lower House where we can deal with legislation, where we can initiate legislation, where we are not rigidly spancelled when we try to get substantial business dealt with. We need a reformed institution and unless we open up this House to the potential it should have, unless we present that as the road forward where we are co-operating to ensure that this House is no longer the rubber stamp it has been — certainly the rubber stamp it has been since I came into this House — and unless we grant this House the powers it is entitled to under the Constitution, and until we as Senators under the Constitution, get rid of the rigidities under which this House operates at present I am worried that we will find ourselves day after day getting involved in argy-bargy and we will have very little business of substance dealt with.
I will not reply to the observation made by Senator Doyle because the fact is before she made that observation I had made up my mind that the proceedings in the Norris case had not got very much to do with what we are actually taking into consideration. I was not here when she made the observation but based on what my colleague told me, it was not totally accurate. I am not saying that was deliberate but when she looks through her papers she will probably find——
I am clear on the facts as are my colleagues on both sides of the House but that does not matter, it is irrelevant.
I am not going into the minutes of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. What seems to have been happening here today is that most people have been standing up — particularly Senators O'Donovan and McKenna — placing emphasis on the situation arising out of the inquiry of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges into what we will describe as the Norris case. With all due respect, we are not considering in depth how the Committee on Procedure and Privileges arrived at the decision on the Norris case. That is not the position. On the contrary, the real question posed is how should someone holding a high office such as Cathaoirleach behave when dealing with serious matters affecting other people, particularly when his first duty, acting in his role of problem solving, was to protect the rights of the committees and the House of Parliament over which he presides. That is the situation as I see it.
That gives rise to a number of points, for example, his suitablity to hold high office, the absence of common sense or the failure to apply it brings into question his suitability to hold the office and the capacity of the Cathaoirleach to ignore the realities and give the impression that you can trick your way out of situations. These are the issues that are before the House. The only common-sense way I know to resolve problems in a just way is to examine events, truths and realities. I know from experience that you cannot take into account events and truths and then exclude reality because when that happens absolute impartiality of judgment is not possible. To ignore reality having taken into account the events and the truths is to avoid climbing the steep path of duty. It is ignoring good common-sense practices; it is dodging the issue in an ostrich like way. When that happens the inevitablity is that we are in the business of forming conclusions to humour our own inclination.
One cannot behave like that particularly if one is a person in high office. Those preconceived notions reflect a mind that is not capable of absolute impartiality of judgment. Impartiality of judgment is a very rare gift, it is a very noble quality; it is the most noble quality any one can possess. However, it does call for putting aside all personal predilections and all desires to humour our own inclinations. I do not think Senator Doherty as Cathaoirleach has the capacity to do that. There are people who for good or evil — for evil most of the time — cannot be prevented from following their own instincts. If you do that you bring a person's suitability into question because you do not have an open mind and you are not suspending judgment until you have consulted and investigated all the facts.
In essence what happened is that common sense which should make us work on analysing the ground which lies between justice and opinion was not exercised in this case. This raises the question of the capacity of the person concerned to hold the office. My experience is that if you do not analyse the ground between judgment and opinion this is very frequently the case of failure and a feeling of guilt for not having exercised good common sense. There is some common sense there but it may not be good common sense.
If you form an opinion on a mere indication that there was a probability that the truth would not surface, that means you are going to form an opinion and the conclusion you come to is that you are going to conceal particularly important information at a vital time. In this case particularly the information was concealed at a vital time from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. This happened because the Cathaoirleach was not capable of letting go of the personal elements in his life. To say the least of it — I do not wish to sound as if I am after anyone's blood — but it seems to me that the Cathaoirleach seems to worship some kind of illusion, and it is the type of illusion that presents all of us with dangers to the integrity of our judgment. I am sure this gains emphasis if you consider that the office he holds calls for the seeking of and serious consideration of the advice of his assistant, the Clerk of the Seanad.
I believe that when one behaves like that the whole question of a harmonious atmosphere and a working relationship with the staff and so on is put in jeopardy. This is all very serious stuff. In certain cases, when we make remarks against each other here, we indulge in a bit of Lynch law and we lynch people and their ideas. I do not think I can be found guilty of that. In this case I did not take up any particular position at an early stage. I did not go to the media. I did not run and put down a motion or anything else, but I did go to my parliamentary party and asked them to give it the fullest possible consideration. They came to the conclusion that if one engages in subterfuge and cunning that is a problem. One puts oneself in that position and because the Cathaoirleach put himself in that position, and holds such high office, he cannot blame anyone for the sorrow he imposed upon himself, because it was voluntarily imposed. That is why the whole question of the suitability arises. As far as I am concerned, from the way the Cathaoirleach has behaved, and particularly if it continues, we are likely to see an adversary of commonsense in the Seanad. That is a very serious thing.
The question also arises as to whether the Cathaoirleach is capable of making his peace with people as they are. This is all in evidence there. If that is the case, we have again got the question of suitability. So, it comes down to this. If the Cathaoirleach thinks in this fashion or behaves in this fashion, he will always believe that it is possible to trick one's way out of things. I do not think most people would look on me as being someone who slams the door shut immediately when something is raised. As I said, I kept an open mind on the whole issue of the Norris affair — I am just making a passing reference to that — until such time as all the facts were there. I have not gone outside the norm on this occasion and that includes going to my superiors and parliamentary colleagues and discussing it in a full and open way at an officially convened parliamentary meeting.
The real issue is that the cause and object of things have been coloured. We cannot colour things with our own desires. Very often I am in difficult situations and possibly under great strain, but I know that I cannot do this. There is every advantage for a person in this House to be good, and that includes the Cathaoirleach, and I think people will know what I mean when I say that. In fact, it is not just here but everywhere in life: if you can afford to be good at all, there is every advantage in it. I am not speaking now like somebody nursing an injured or tender mind. I am trying to come to terms with the fact that we have a person here who tried to escape from reality and dodge what must be faced and what should have been faced. When the relevant information was made available to the Cathaoirleach he should have been mature enough to decide the right thing — in the opposite direction to the run of his inclinations. It seems that he tried to trick things out. This again shows a lack of maturity and it again raises the question of his ability to hold high office.
I want to conclude by saying that I would like to draw people's minds back to the date when the Cathaoirleach was appointed. In fact, I had a very serious parliamentary party meeting before the Cathaoirleach was appointed and it is well known by now that I took exception to my own parliamentary party's view that we should vote against Senator Doherty for the Chair. I did that on the grounds that it was unprecedented. We did not do that before, it was never done before and the practice was that we would abstain on the appointment of the Cathaoirleach. That was what I suggested to the parliamentary party meeting. The parliamentary party did not accept that and the decision was taken that we would vote against. I am merely making the point that because it was the custom and practice I did not differentiate against Senator Doherty; he was treated in the same way as every other Cathaoirleach in the 17 years I have been in the Seanad. I do not know what has happened, whether he has got himself into a situation of intellectual paralysis or what, but he has made a grave error and there is no doubt that the motion asking for his resignation is justified and I support it.
As a number of speakers have said, this is a sad day for the Seanad and for the Members of the Seanad on both sides of the House. It is not a day we would wish to see from any side of the House. I really initiated the proceedings whereby we arrived at this situation when I raised the matter of allegations made by Senator David Norris, I raised the matter of his very serious breaches of privilege to the Committee of Procedure and Privileges. It should be said from the beginning that the manner in which the Senator raised the matter would have been an extreme breach of privilege irrespective of whether the allegations he made were true or untrue, because in the manner in which he raised them there was an inference against the Chair which was unsustainable and therefore was in breach of privilege.
There is a very simple proposition here before us this evening. Many people have gone to the periphery of the arguments. There is a very simple motion before the House this afternoon and that is that Seanad Éireann resolves that the Cathaoirleach shall be removed from office. I want to make the position of the Fianna Fáil Party very clear. I want to openly express the opinion that this motion should not succeed. We will be opposing the motion. There were references to selected Members of the House and that if the selected Members of the House were eliminated from the equation the vote might go in a different direction. May I say as a selected Member of this House, I am an equal Member of this House, irrespective of whether I was elected or selected. I would stand over the right of any selected Member of this House to vote or have an opinion on any matter before this House and I reject the inference that was cast that because I was selected or any other Member was selected they do not have equal rights in this House.
On a point of order, could we have the name of the Senator who made this reference to Senator Lanigan, because it is news to us on this side of the House? It is typical of Fianna Fáil to fix on something everybody agrees with and then say: "we feel this way". Nobody said it.
On a point of information, it was stated.
By whom was it said?
I said it.
Acting Chairman
The record will speak for itself. Senator Lanigan, without interruption.
The Senator who made the allegation has now actually come into the argument. I did not want to mention anybody's name but there was an inference and the person who actually brought this before the House was Senator Upton. I make no apologies for saying it. I was asked a question. I did not want to mention anybody's name because I did not wish to get into an argument.
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
May I remind the House that in matters of this nature, where allegations are being made in relation to contributions made earlier in the debate, the record will speak for itself. I would advise the House to allow Senator Lanigan to continue without interruption.
There is a very simple motion before the House and Fianna Fáil are opposing this motion. We oppose it because it is not substantive enough to have a motion of no confidence in the Cathaoirleach. I believed, when I read the opinion of counsel, that there were serious flaws in the counsel's opinion. They start very early on in his opinion when he states: "The issue to be determined by the committee was whether or not the Cathaoirleach had subverted the meeting referred to and sought to exclude all representation from the Senate". This was not the substantive issue. The issue was whether or not there was——
We never got that to decide.
It has been referred to on numerous occasions, therefore I believe I am entitled to bring it into the debate if it has not already been brought into the debate. If I got this as an opinion from a senior counsel I would have to say that the Cathaoirleach was quite correct because it was quite obvious that the senior counsel had misunderstood what the situation was when he states: "The issue to be determined by the committee was whether or not the Cathaoirleach had subverted the meeting referred to and sought to exclude all representation from the Senate". This was not the issue. I raised the matter as to whether Senator Norris was in breach of parliamentary privilege or not. The question has been asked on numerous occasions during this debate as to whether the Cathaoirleach should have been in the chair or not. We would have had to suspend Standing Orders of the Seanad if Senator Doherty was not going to chair the meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
And, as you said last week, we do that every day.
I do not think any other speaker was interrupted. I readily appreciate from a reading of the minutes of the committee that no matter who was presiding at the hearing, on the evidence produced before the committee it would be impossible to come to any other conclusion but that Senator Norris's allegations were without foundation. I did not want to bring the peripheral matters into this debate but they have been brought into it and there is a statement of fact there. The Senators have been very selective in their arguments in this debate up to now. I am not going to be selective; I am stating facts from a brief.
The principle of natural justice has been raised on many occasions during this debate. Where is the principle of natural justice being accorded to the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad? If the newspapers, television and radio reports came out, if there had been a judicial inquiry into anything, the case would have been immediately eliminated because of prejudice and the prejudice is the prejudice of the Press so, therefore, the principle of natural justice has not been accorded to the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad.
Under any circumstances there has been no involvement by anybody or no suggestion that there has been an elimination of the principles of natural justice in the case of the Cathaoirleach. Senator Norris might say that his natural justice situation was subverted by a decision of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Senator Norris is a Member of this House. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges are not a disciplinary committee of this House, they are a regulatory committee and within that committee we are quite entitled, if allegations are made, whether they be about the Chair or a Member, to adjudicate on those matters. The brief also states and the recommendations suggest that the committee are quite correct in adjudicating on those matters.
With regard to the rules of natural justice, I am not too sure what the legal definition is of natural justice,. There is a Latin definition of the rules of natural justice. I have never seen anybody go to court and win a case on the rules of natural justice. I suggest that everybody has the right to natural justice. But in this House we do not go along with some of these Latin phrases of——
(Interruptions.)
The principles of natural justice are guaranteed by the Constitution according to the senior counsel's opinion which we did not get.
There is no doubt in my mind but that the issue before us is a very simple issue; was the Cathaoirleach wrong in not producing the legal opinion? I would say, yes and on this side of the House nobody will disagree with that. Then we have to ask: is that cause enough to have a constitutional crisis, as some people call it, or to have us deliberating on whether the Cathaoirleach is fit to be in the Chair? It is a matter of little consequence, not of no consequence, but of little consequence.
The cynicism of the public regarding politicians has been mentioned. It is the politicians who create this fiction of the cynicism of the public towards politicians. I know from talking to people, whether they be young or old, that they are quite satisfied that there are people in politics who should not be there. They are quite satisfied that there are people in business who should not be there. There are people in trade unions who should not be there. There is no more cynicism about politicians or about politics than there is about the newspapers. There are many people who are extremely cynical about the way newspapers can react. In this particular situation I would be very worried about the attitude of the press in this matter.
The business of the House should be regulated by the House. This is a principle over which I stand. I, and I sincerely hope no other Member of the House, will be browbeaten by threat of judicial action. I received a letter without prejudice from a solicitor's office yesterday relating to this matter. It is without prejudice so I might deem fit to ignore it. There are certian things in that letter that I will be taking up very strongly whether it is with or without prejudice. I do not have to go too far to read through that letter which was written to me as a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges without prejudice. I will be taking that matter up in another place because I totally reject the inferences contained in it and the threat of court action and various other threats that I will not accept.
I accept that this is a House of the Oireachtas. I do not think that the House has been harmed, as has been suggested, by this issue which is a minor issue. I do not think that Senator Seán Doherty did any more than he himself accepted. He made an error of judgment and he unreservedly accepted that he had made an error of judgment. It is not an error of judgment of major consequence. Therefore, I totally reject the motion that is before us this evening.
I must, first of all, ask the indulgence of the House for the fact that I am reading a text. As the House knows, I invariably speak in an extemporary manner in Seanad debates. However, on this occasion, in deference to the unprecedented nature of the debate, and my sense of my own role as a catalyst of the whole affair, I believe it proper that every single word of mine should be controlled——
On a point of order, is it in order in this House to read prepared statements?
Acting Chairman
I have been advised, in response to Senator Conroy's point of order, it is not normal or usual practice to read a text in the course of a contribution. A Senator may, I understand, refer to notes, if that answers the Senator.
It is a contemptible point, Sir, and one which I have not made in reference to Senator Conroy, but I have a good memory. I shall continue without interruption, please, and with the Chair's protection. If I have no protection anywhere else in this House, I demand it from the Acting Chairman.
Acting Chairman
I assure Senator Norris that he will receive the full protection of the House where it is relevant.
I have not read the statement in case there is a misunderstanding.
Acting Chairman
I advise Senator Conroy to please desist from interrupting and allow Senator Norris to continue with his contribution.
I believe it proper that every single word of mine should be controlled and measured so that nothing I say will exacerbate further tensions that may exist between parties and individuals. After all, this business must end some time and we will then have once more to work together harmoniously. I, therefore, do not propose to deal with the substance of matters such as the composition of the delegation to Nicaragua, the behaviour of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges towards me, or the conduct of the Cathaoirleach during the matter. Suffice it to say that by my vote I intend to demonstrate where my conscience lies.
It has not been easy for me to remain silent in the midst of a blizzard of media coverage, but I have done so. I would like to place on the record of this House, in the clearest and most unambiguous terms, that I have not made any Press statement or comment whatever in this matter, nor have I authorised publication of any statement or memorandum. I do, however, hope to be given a fair opportunity to refute the charge that I have been guilty of a breach of privilege of Seanad Éireann before a suitable body acting in accordance with the rules of constitutional and natural justice.
I would like to say, simply in order to clear up a misunderstanding, that I have the greatest respect for the Oireachtas and its institutions, in particular for Seanad Éireann. The action I took in the High Court was not intended to damage or to limit the rights of Seanad Éireann, but I would remind this House that Seanad Éireann was itself established by and under the Constitution. It is therefore a reasonable presumption that it is required to act within that Constitution. I thank the Acting Chairman for his courtesy.
On a point of information, it has been agreed with the Labour Party that they would not take their motion from 6.30 to 8 o'clock, that they will postpone the commencement of that motion until 7 o'clock and then go from 7 to 8.30. In the spirit of co-operation, may I ask that we finish this motion at 7 o'clock. As far as I can see there are only two people offering now, Senator O'Toole and the proposer of the motion.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed?
Yes.
As a trade unionist, it gives me no pleasure at all, to be discussing and proposing the resignation or the removal from office of anybody. Right through this whole affair I have done my best to bring the laws of natural justice to bear on what we are about. I have had little or no success in that matter. We are actually going further. We are actually going to dig ourselves deeper in to the hole. I want to put one marker down. If anybody across the way thinks because there is a certain element of complacency entering into the debate — it has been there for the last two hours that this matter finishes with a vote at 7 o'clock tonight, they can think again. I want to put that clearly on the record. This matter is far too serious. I am convinced of that. I have listened to some recent contributions from the far side of the House telling me that this is not an important matter at all that we are all over-reacting.
Before discussing the Doherty affair I want to clarify a number of issues on the Norris position. I believe and my group believe that Senator Norris, when he rose to make certain allegations in this House, believed that what he said was correct and still believes it to this day. In terms of the evidence that was presented to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges — I would like the people from the other side of the House to take this on board — two kinds of evidence were presented. There was hard evidence as a signed written statement and there was hearsay. Despite what people say about not using legal precedence or whatever, the only hard evidence was a signed statement presented on behalf of Senator Norris, signed by a person who was present at a certain meeting. The only other evidence was hearsay evidence. That is not to say that it was incorrect. I just want to put that point clearly on the record.
On the allegations that Senator Norris made I want to also make this much clear. He made certain allegations against the Cathaoirleach. The Cathaoirleach denies them. I asked the Cathaoirleach at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges meeting and outside the Committee on Procedure and Privileges meeting that if he did not do it who then did it. The easiest way of disproving Senator Norris's allegations is to tell us who in fact seconded the motion if it was not the Cathaoirleach. I said the same to my colleagues from the Labour Party and from Fine Gael, all of whom are able to tell me that Senator Norris is incorrect that the Cathaoirleach did not second or propose the motion. I said: "If that is the case then just tell me a very simple thing, who did it?" I have been asking that question since 21 February and I still await a reply. I just want to put that on the record because I think it is important.
I want to go further as well, particularly in relation to what the Leader said a minute ago. When this finishes today we will then start into the whole business again of whether the allegations of Senator Norris were correct or incorrect? If any sense is to prevail although I do not expect that it will — there is a very simple way of settling these matters, which are done in ordinary places where there are grievances and difficulties to resolve. If we need to investigate allegations against anybody there should be a joint panel of people from both Houses. If the allegation involves a person in one House it is the Members from the other House who will investigate it and their proposals are put to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges of the appropriate House. That Committee on Procedure and Privileges then seek from the involved Member, or Senator in this case, any appeal or any written confirmation and on that basis make a recommendation to the House. That is the normal system for which I can find precedent after precedence in all sorts of fora. I would just put that on the record as well.
I feel, before we go any further with this matter, we should know that we have proper procedures in place. There is a statement, for instance in the opinion of the senior counsel that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges is, inter alia, the committee which investigates allegations of breach of privilege, etc. I do not know where he got that information. It was not in the briefing notice he got from the Chief State Solicitor. I do not know who said it to him. I certainly have no evidence that it is right. It is an understanding that people have.
In early February the Cathaoirleach circulated a statement to every Member of this House. It arose from a difficulty which we had in trying to raise certain issues. Senators will recall that today, some hours ago, the Cathaoirleach made it clear that his position could be justified by certain precedents involving the Ceann Comhairle in the other House. I want to remind Senators on both sides what the Cathaoirleach said to us by letter individually a month ago. "There is no strict analogy with the Ceann Comhairle in the Dáil and it should be noted..." Either that is a lie or something we heard today is a lie. Nobody tells lies in this House so obviously I am wrong on both counts. This is, nevertheless, a fact. I am not trying to score cheap points here. I am trying to bring people to their senses and to realise the way words are being twisted, the way the truth is being perverted and the way we have difficulty getting to the core of the matter.
Last Thursday evening, in breach of all precedents and in breach of Standing Orders, the Cathaoirleach attempted to make an explanation to the House. Let me read what he told us a month ago. Senators have this on their files:
If the precedent was allowed to be created whereby a Cathaoirleach was enforced to make an explanatory statement in the House in the manner sought by certain Senators, this ruling would, in effect, have been negated and the office of Cathaoirleach would have been irreparably compromised.
This is what he told us a month ago. Three days ago he wanted to adjourn the House in order to give us a statement. Would somebody tell me if we can accept order and rulings from somebody who can change his mind with such facility? I could go through this document but I do not have the time. Senators have this document and know as much about it as I do. I would recommend them to look at it. I want to correct something that was in the statement which was circulated. The proposer of the motion, Senator Ross, said a statement was circulated to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and afterwards to the Press. As a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges I never received a copy, I got a copy from a member of the Press. It was not circulated to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges at any stage that I am aware of. A least I did not get a copy if it were.
My whole life is spent looking at documents like this. The document starts off with the detail: "I was contacted by car 'phone". What is the relevance of being contacted by car 'phone? You think you are going to get all the details in this document. Then it says: "I received a copy by FAX at home". At least it was not a car FAX, it was a FAX at home. This is the kind of lead we are getting. Then we go down through the document and find it is full of what I can only call double speak.
Since I came into this House I have made it a practice to defend public servants and trade unions. I detest any efforts to blame the Clerk of this House, a public servant who is above reproach, in order to offload the blame onto somebody else. It just is not good enough. The Cathaoirleach tells us in the document that he proposed to ignore the opinion on the basis that he considered it irrelevant because the committee had already taken decisions. He gives us all to understand that decisions had been taken and that we could go no further with it. I do not have time to go through the opinion in detail but it is there for all who wish to see it. The only decision that had been taken by the committee was that Senator Norris was wrong and should be asked to withdraw the allegations. The council said that the committee should be reconvened. Despite the fact that the council had made it quite clear that the committee had acted incorrectly, that the committee were in breach of natural justice, that the committee should have allowed Senator Norris to produce witnesses, etc., we are told it was irrelevant. As the Leader of the House said that the Cathaoirleach was wrong. It is far worse than that. It was not an error of judgment.
I want to make another point. When we came to discuss this matter in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges — I would like this point to be taken clearly on board by my colleagues on the Committee on Procedures and Privileges — I, in an attempt to find some common ground so that we would not arrive at the situation we are in today, was exploring all sorts of possibilities with the Cathaoirleach and the committee. As a person who had pushed this hardest in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges — nobody in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges would deny I made every effort last week to find a resolution to this problem — I thought that one way we might go forward was to set up a subcommittee of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to establish the facts and then to let the committee make a decision on the basis of those facts. That was not allowed because the Cathaoirleach told the committee that he would not be prepared to give his side of the story to any committee of inquiry. I want that put on the record because it was at that point that he lost me. I also told the Cathaoirleach that "the Members of my group have gone through this and each one of them feel uncomfortable with the idea of proposing your resignation. At the same time they do not believe you that you could have felt the senior counsel's opinion to be irrelevant."
The Cathaoirleach's response to me on that matter — I made a note of it — is "I wish they would repeat that outside the House". I am not sure what that means. I am not sure to what he could have been referring but it is interesting in the context of people standing up on the far side and saying "we will not be threatened by legal action." I reported that back to the Members in my group and one of them went on television that night and made precisely the same statement. Just in case Senator Doherty missed it I am bringing it to his attention. It has been said on national television for the country to hear. If there is any course of action the Cathaoirleach wishes to take on that basis, he should do so quickly.
In the statement the Cathaoirleach says — this is classic double speak and anybody who looks at this document will be aware of it too —"This was the first opportunity I had to give this information, to the committee" etc. "This information" refers to the opinion of the legal counsel in the previous sentence. The next sentence goes on to say: "The information was given to me by the committee without being requested by any member of the committee" as if to say we met and the Cathaoirleach handed out the opinion. The word "information" refers to two different things in two different sentences. That is the difficulty with him. The first "information" is about being in contact with the senior counsel; the second "information" does not refer to the opinion of senior counsel which the Cathaoirleach had to be severely encouraged to reveal and make available to the rest of us.
At the meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges before we had sight of the legal document the Cathaoirleach told me three times that the information was not on behalf of the committee. It was when I got a copy of the briefing note from senior counsel, that I read the first sentence which states: "Three issues in the main arise which the committee require a legal opinion on". That is not a timespan of more than 20 minutes. I would like to explain what has happened because people are asking: how could anybody get it so wrong? Why would any Cathaoirleach get it so wrong? Would he not know what was going to happen?" I want to put it in a proper context.
This was no error, this was no accident, this was not something that would become available to us anyway. That was not the case. The gamble was that the Cathaoirleach was sitting on legal advice which if it were available would have overturned the position of the committee at that time at least. Even though I made it clear to the Cathaoirleach and to the Clerk by note before decisions were taken in this House, and to the Leader of the House that litigation was being initiated — it was not felt that it would go to the court. The gamble was this. If it had not gone to the courts and if it had not succeeded in court we would never have heard of that legal advice, we would not be discussing that here today and neither would our friends on both sides of the House have been embarrassed by what happened.
The gamble failed because the courts sorted the matter out and it became available. It is my information that far from any sense of generosity from the Cathaoirleach in making the legal advice available to us the case was, in fact, that the senior counsel was very worried that the information had not been made available to the committee. I understand that the senior counsel took steps to ensure that the Cathaoirleach made the advice available. That is the background to it.
Everything is on the record at this stage. History will judge for itself. I would say to Senator Lanigan, in response to the point about who was in favour of whatever, that if fair is fair in this issue to take everybody off the hook, let us have a free vote on it, let us not whip them in on it. There are friends of mine on that side of the House who are very uncomfortable. I am not offering this as a joke. That would be one way out of the matter, one way of letting people at least be answerable to their consciences.
I firmly believe that we have done a bad day's work. We can retrieve the situation. I said here a month ago that a voting majority will never give a moral authority. We are attempting today to impose morality through majority vote. It will not happen, it does not happen. It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to support an initiative to remove somebody from office. It bothers me. I am not comfortable with it. It is a position I have taken only after much soul searching and after exploring every other avenue — people in this House know I have explored every other avenue — to try to find a resolution. It has not been possible. I expected an honourable response from other places. It was not there. We have no option at this stage except to support the motion. I appeal to colleagues on the Government benches to respond in a positive way to the motion by making a new start. Support this motion and start again.
On a point of information, before Senator Ross concludes——
Acting Chairman
Is this a point of information?
——when I was addressing the House I inadvertently forgot to mention the role of the Clerk of the Seanad and the staff of the Seanad in this whole matter. I want to put on the record of the House that I have absolutely no doubt that the Clerk of the Seanad worked for the Seanad and is in no way to be blamed for anything that happened. I would like to place on the record my total support for the Clerk of the Seanad and the staff of the Seanad. They have always been honourable——
Will the Senator show it by voting?
——and have always acted in a proper manner, I want that placed on the record of the House.
I will take up that last remark in a moment because I find it very difficult to reconcile it with the statement Senator Doherty made last week. I really do not think that Fianna Fáil can have it both ways. I do not think they can support a man who dropped the Clerk in it last week and this week say that they support everything he has done. That is hyprocrisy, it is double think, it is having it both ways and it is confusing for those people who do not understand the situation. They may want to take that position. They, maybe, would like to take a position of integrity but it is too late. If they are supporting Senator Doherty they are not taking such a position. It is really asking too much of us to take their votes in a few moments as credible.
I will not keep the House long. My time is very short, I could have predicted the speeches from the Fianna Fáil side this evening. It was predictable that the main issue involved would be diverted, that the main issue involved, the issue of the resignation of Senator Doherty, would be transferred somehow and the focus put upon Senator Norris once again. The reason for that is, of course, that the Fianna Fáil side have no defence to what Senator Doherty did. I listened with interest to the speeches from Senator McKenna — I missed one from Senator Conroy — and Senator Lanigan. Their capacity to say that everybody is out of tune except Fianna Fáil is the height of arrogance.
The courts were taken on here today. The courts were wrong in their judgment, the counsel was wrong in his judgment, the Progressive Democrats, their colleagues in Coalition, were wrong, Fine Gael are wrong, Labour are wrong and every single Independent who makes up his own mind is wrong. It is extraordinary, but that is the Fianna Fáil position. Yet they have a Trojan horse within their midst because they know that they are wrong as well. I suggest that their position is unsustainable in the long run. If they go through the lobbies in favour of Senator Doherty, supporting his statement and his actions I suggest that the difficulties they will create for this House in the future are unimaginable.
I noted from the Fianna Fáil speeches — I missed one so I am open to correction, but I doubt if I shall be corrected — that not one of the questions which I asked, and so eloquently asked just now by Senator O'Toole, about the detail of Senator Doherty's statement, was answered. We heard speech after speech retrying Senator Norris. That, as everybody knows, is irrelevant today. That matter will be sorted out in another place at another time. We welcome that opportunity. We look forward to it. We look forward to an impartial inquiry into what Senator Norris said. This was not the time to raise it nor was it time to raise the truculence or the difficulties the Independents have caused on the Order of Business. We have said in passing that maybe we are at fault in some way there. Maybe we have stretched the rules of the House, maybe there is room for scope, or maybe the rules of the House should be changed but that is irrelevant today.
The motion here is that the Cathaoirleach should resign. It is not about any of us; it is not about Senator Norris; his name is not after the motion. Successfully, to a certain extent, we have heard a very articulate attack on Senator Norris once again. We have heard no explanation for how Senator Doherty could think the legal opinion was irrelevant — nobody has even attempted to offer one — when he had requested it, obviously as a matter of urgency, three days beforehand. No explanation is offered or given. The answer is, of course, that Senator Doherty did not think it was irrelevant. Senator Doherty thought it was inconvenient and uncomfortable and so decided to ignore it.
We have heard no justification for the iniquitous inclusion of a civil servant in the statement, not just for the statements the Clerk was meant to have made, or the action he had taken. We have heard no justification whatever why he should have been mentioned. If Senator Doherty does not know it, the Clerk is meant to be invisible in this House and is not meant to be mentioned. If he does know it, he should not be Cathaoirleach of this House. If he does not know it, he should not be Cathaoirleach of this House anyway. Both ways he loses and both ways we have heard no explanation for it.
We have had no explanation about decisions Senator Doherty refers to. He says he did not believe the opinion to be relevant because decisions had been taken. I do not know who drafted this for Senator Doherty, maybe he drafted it himself. It seems to me that the word "decisions" there is very important because, as far as I know, only one relevant decision was made and that decision was reversible and that decision had not been made and would have been influenced by counsel's opinion. We have had no explanation from anybody on the Fianna Fáil side as to who this document was prepared for if it was not for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and Senator Doherty says he did not realise this at the time.
I have to say once again that the reason I am proposing this motion is that I simply do not believe that; I simply find his explanations incredible and so I think would any reasonable man. When Senator Doherty has done this, when the only defence which has been put forward by the Fianna Fáil side is one of mitigation, not of innocence, when they say yes, he did commit an error but it was not a resigning matter, I would like them to suggest what is a resigning matter. It seems to me that Fianna Fáil morality and the morality of the rest of this House are completely different. Apparently, misleading the House, concealing relevant documents and opinions from the House is not a resigning matter. I do not know what Senator Doherty has to do for the Fianna Fáil Party to think it is a resigning matter, but my imagination runs riot. This, if anything, is a resigning matter.
We had a particularly interesting, sane and authoritative contribution from Senator McDonald. Senator McDonald is the only ex-Cathaoirleach who spoke on this issue. It would have been interesting to have heard Senator Honan on this matter and her opinions might have been interesting.
Senator McDonald, who was an extraordinarily good and impartial Cathaoirleach, condemned Senator Doherty and did it with authority and great reluctance. He spoke with the authority of having been a former chairman and he believed that what Senator Doherty had done was absolutely out of bounds.
It is right that it should be said in this House that many of us feel that the full story here has not yet been told. I do not say this lightly but it is only fair that we should say that if the full truth has not been known, if there are gaps in evidence, which there undoubtedly are, we must pursue this matter further. It is not enough for Fianna Fáil just to have the numbers and to say "We have won the vote. So we have the situation where we want it." We do not have the truth yet and with some of the rumours that have been passing around this House — some of them may not be true, some of them are — it is only right that a sworn inquiry should be set up into this matter to extract the truth. That is the only way we will find out what happened, because there are difficulties, gaps; there are details and explanations which are missing. A sworn inquiry would presumably involve every single person who was involved in this matter and we might get closer to the truth. At the moment it looks like we are going, by one or two votes, to allow the Cathaoirleach to remain in office, but the tragedy of that is that we will do it without knowing the truth of what he did. If you do not accept his explanation, which I do not, you actually want to find out what the real truth was and what really happened. The House still has a right to know what really happened and what the truth in this matter was.
Acting Chairman
The Senator has exceeded his time. I have given him great latitude.
I am finishing, Sir. I wish to say one or two words about the future. I do not think the Seanad will ever be quite the same again, providing Senator Doherty stays in the Chair. Personal relationships have been soured. The position that he holds will never have the moral authority that his predecessors had so long as he remains there. Let there be no doubt about that.
I appeal to the Fianna Fáil Senators who believe he was wrong to join us here. I know it is difficult; I know it goes against the whole Fianna Fáil grain. But there is a duty to the Oireachtas; there is a duty to that office and there is a duty to this House to vote with us.
The appeal made by Senator O'Toole for a free vote will presumably fall upon deaf ears. It is very sad that on this issue, which is, if there ever was an issue of conscience or importance, Fianna Fáil cannot see it in them to do other then to whip in those unwilling Members behind Senator Doherty and behind the statement he made last night.
Finally — it is not too late — I call upon Senator Doherty before the vote is taken to give us his resignation.
Question put: "That the motion be agreed to".
The Seanad divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 29.
Tá
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Joe.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Dardis, John.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Harte, John.
- Hederman, Carmencita.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- Howard, Michael.
- Jackman, Mary.
- Kennedy, Patrick.
- Keogh, Helen.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Murphy, John A.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Raftery, Tom.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Ryan, John.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Upton, Pat.
Níl
- Bennett, Olga.
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Sean.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Fallon, Sean.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Foley, Denis.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- Lydon, Don.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- O'Donovan, Denis A.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
- Wright, G. V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Ross and B. Ryan; Níl, Senators McGowan and Wright.
Question declared lost.