Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Nov 1990

Vol. 126 No. 11

Indemnity of Cathaoirleach: Motion.

Mr. Fallon

I move:

That Seanad Éireann requests the Minister for Finance to grant an indemnity to the Cathaoirleach and his successors in Office against any claims for personal liability that may be made against him on foot of the contract for televising of Seanad proceedings.

In accordance with a resolution of Seanad Éireann, dated 10 July 1990, Windmill Lane Pictures Ltd. have been engaged to supply the system for televising Seanad proceedings. It is hoped to sign the formal contract very soon. The contracting party on behalf of the Seanad will be the Cathaoirleach. The copyright of recorded material will rest in him also.

It is essential that the Cathaoirleach be indemnified against any personal liability arising out of the contract and the vesting of copyright as aforesaid. However, there are doubts as to whether Seanad Éireann is in a position to offer such an indemnity because it appears that it is not a legal entity capable of being sued. It is proposed, therefore, that the Minister for Finance be requested to grant the indemnity. Legal advice has indicated that if the Minister for Finance wishes to grant an indemnity to the Cathaoirleach against personal liability with claims made against him on foot of the contract there appears nothing in the Constitution to prohibit him from doing so. It suggests, however, that in order to make clear the Constitutional distinction between the Government and the Oireachtas he should do so only on a request from Seanad Éireann. Accordingly, this motion is before the House for agreement.

Mr. Manning

This was discussed in some detail on the committee dealing with the televising of this House. The matter has been examined in some fair detail, so I would have no difficulty in supporting what has been proposed today. I would also like to say how pleased I am at the progress that has been made towards the televising of this House. We were somewhat late into this in spite of the best efforts of the previous Cathaoirleach who certainly gave it her full support from the first moment, but we did tend to get somehow left behind. I am glad now that plans are very well advanced. I would hope that we will be on screen almost as soon as the other House. However, this particular motion today has my support.

Mr. J. O'Toole

I do not have any difficulty in supporting the thrust and the aims of this particular legislation. I have also made that clear at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges; but I do have a problem with two aspects of it. First, there is confusion despite the best legal advice available to us, as to who represents the Seanad for legal purposes in situations like this. That should be cleared up. I am more concerned about the confusion that exists between the role of Government and the role of the House. It is my view that for the purposes of arrangements like this the Seanad itself should be in the position to indemnify the Cathaoirleach or, indeed, any other officer as the case would arise, in similar situations. It seems to me that what we are trying to do here this morning is ask the Minister for Finance to bankroll the House. That is a bit unusual. It is somewhat unacceptable. I have not come across a model to compare with this one before. I do not know whether there has been any parallel situation. I want to stress that I totally support the proposal, but it has raised two very serious questions which to me are merging together. There are not clear differentials between them.

We have taken the decision as a House of the Oireachtas. On the basis of that we should have clearly nominated an identifiable officer or representative to sign or take responsibility on our behalf. Having done that, we, as a House of the Oireachtas, should indemnify and guarantee that person against any liabilities that might arise when he or she acts on our behalf. That seems to be a very clear arrangement. It would be the arrangement that I would prefer to see introduced. I am not clear as to why that cannot be done. At the end of the day the Department of Finance have to pick up the cheque, as they do for all the decisions of this House. I am not quite clear as to why we need to go on this roundabout way to do it. It seems to me that the Government are in some way interfering with the autonomous role the House should have in ordering its own business, in taking responsibility for its own affairs and in making its own decisions. Were the Minister for Finance to say tomorrow morning "I am not going to accept this responsibility" where then would we be? I know there is not the slightest possibility of that happening, but you must see the point I am making.

We are now doing this at the will of Government, not at our own decision. The Minister for Finance could decide "it is not within my brief to cover this indemnity, to underwrite the risk of the Seanad". That leaves us somewhat exposed. We should have been in a stronger position to take these kinds of decisions ourselves and to cover for whichever officers or individuals we put forward to sign on our behalf.

Mr. Norris

I do not intend to delay the House very long on this matter. This is another occasion on which quite complicated, technical material relating to the broadcasting of proceedings from this House has been laid before us without much preparation or discussion. I do not really feel that, as ordinary Members of the House, we have been kept as fully informed of the developments as, perhaps, we ought to have been. I am concerned at that. Repeatedly, as I may make this point to the Leader of the House, this has happened. I know that everybody is anxious that we should go on air as early as possible, but I am concerned because of the technical matters involved. For example, is it for some particular technical reason that the copyright of every speech made by individual persons here is vested in the Cathaoirleach? Presumably it is vested in the Office of Cathaoirleach, not in the specific person who holds that position at the time of the recording. What happens if, in 20 or 30 years' time, a controversial item from the past is broadcast and somebody then takes action? This is not a laughable or hypothetical situation. I can illustrate it from my own knowledge of Joycean studies. A story appears in the Hades' episode of Ulysses about Ruben J. Dodd who commits suicide for love or attempts to and is rescued and is fished out. His father gives the man who rescues him half a crown. Simon Dedalus in this episode remarks wryly: "one and six pence too much". It was heard by Ruben Dodd in 1950 and he took a successful action for libel so there can be delayed impact in these things.

An Cathaoirleach

Was it against the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad?

Mr. Norris

Not against the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad. I am afraid, Sir, your courage and daring did not extend on that occasion in 1904 to rescuing Ruben J. Dodd, junior, but I am sure if you had been there at the time you would have gallantly jumped into the water. I want to know why the Cathaoirleach, rather than Seanad Éireann itself, is named here and, secondly, is it the person of the Cathaoirleach as an officer or as an individual who is involved? I am sure there is, perhaps, a legal reason for it but because the speeches of all of us will be perhaps broadcast, we are entitled to be more fully consulted. I do not know where the responsibility for that lies, but I really think it is an important matter. We should not just rush into it.

Mr. Manning

There is a full legal briefing document on all of these questions which was available to the committee. It would be sensible if this could be made available to all Members, and if the senior counsel could speak to all Members on these matters. It is technical. We are covering a great deal of ground here that has been covered already.

Mr. Fallon

I was about to say that this matter has been discussed. We were informed at the time. Obviously, the decisions we have made were made in the light of that legal opinion. I presume that while Senator Norris talks about the Cathaoirleach we mean the Office holder of Cathaoirleach for the time being. All I can say to further add to the correctness of this matter is that the other House has introduced a similar motion and it has been passed. A lot of thought was given to it. I understand very positively Senator Norris' worry about future events but my understanding is that what we are doing is correct and proper.

Question put and agreed to.