It is intended that we take items Nos. 1, 2 and 3 today. It is intended that we take all Stages of item No. 2.
Order of Business.
Yesterday an appeal was made in this House to the Government of Iraq to spare the life of the Iranian journalist working for The Observer. Unfortunately, as we all now know, our appeal — indeed, one of very many appeals made right across the world—- has fallen on deaf ears. This morning in the early hours the execution took place. This morning I do not feel under the same restraint as I felt under yesterday morning in conveying the feelings of most Irish people at this outrage, our sense of this evil regime and the evil man who runs that particular country. I hope that this will be the view of all Members of the House.
Senators
hear, hear.
On item No. 1, I understand it is proposed to take this without debate.
We did not say so.
I want that clarified.
It is intended that item No. 1 be taken without debate and brought to a conclusion by one question from the Chair.
My group will have to oppose this proposal. We feel that this is a matter of importance which has received very wide publicity. There are Members in the House who will be called upon to vote upon this matter and it is only fair that they should at least hear the outlines of the case. I, for my own part, want to put firmly on the record the reasons why our group are taking the particular line we are taking. In fairness to everybody else, it is important that, in a low key and courteous way, we can put the reasons on the record. We would ask the Leader of the House to allow perhaps one speaker per group, but at least to allow a debate on this subject.
Is there anybody else to speak?
I would like to clarify the matter of the taking of item No. 1. This matter has been discussed at great length at the Committee on Procedures and Privileges. Most of the people outside that Committee do not know what happened at the Committee. Those of us on the Committee are bound by confidentiality. The Constitution demands that anybody answerable for any utterances made in the House be amenable to the House. The House is entitled to know what happened, how it was dealt with and the reasons for the proposals from the Committee. It is a straightforward position. I do not intend speaking on the issue. I am speaking directly on the Order of Business. It cannot be under any circumstances acceptable that something of such seriousness can be dealt with and disposed of simply by the proposal of a motion and one speaker from each group. I am not sure that is what the Leader has in mind, but it would be utterly irresponsible for us to do that. It will only exacerbate an already difficult position. I am a very firm believer in talking things out. Any effort not to talk things out means that the energy will appear and reappear somewhere else.
All right Senator.
I will make one other point on the Order of Business, totally unrelated. It is this. I wish to clarify through you, a Cathaoirligh, to the members of the Press that what the Leader of the House referred to yesterday as the motion from the Independent group, which is a matter of some discussion in the media at the moment, is not a motion from the Independent group; it is a motion from certain Members of the Independent group which is taken in the Independent group's time.
May I join with Senator Manning in expressing my deep regret and disgust at the execution of the Iranian journalist who worked for The Observer newspaper? It is absolutely appalling. Indeed, I must also say it was something of an oversight on our part yesterday that I did not join in the appeals. It certainly was not because I had forgotten it but because I felt that I should not burden the Cathaoirleach by trying to get back in again. That is why I did not join in the appeals which were made from all sides of the House.
In relation to item No. 1, our group will also be opposing it. We believe that there should be a discussion on this matter. It is an important issue for people such as myself who are not members of the Committee on Procedures and Privileges. We simply have nothing to go on beyond what appears in the newspapers, what appears in the motion and a very brief report. That is not acceptable to us.
I would like to add my voice to those who have expressed concern and revulsion at the execution of a journalist in Iraq. It leads me to wonder what this country is doing having diplomatic relations with that country and whether that will not be altered. I sincerely hope that it will.
I would like to address the question of item No. 1. If there is not to be a full debate, I wish to place firmly on the record my amendment that item No. 1 not be taken today and that instead items Nos. 2 and 3 be taken. That is a conditional proposal and will, of course, not take effect if there is a full debate. A full debate, I believe, is required because, first of all, in my opinion this is already a flawed report in fact and in the procedures which produced it. I have also instructed solicitors to seek in the High Court this afternoon a judicial review of the procedures of this committee which will clearly have a bearing on this outcome. The Members of the Oireachtas would be taking an unwise step if they gave a precedent to citizens of the country who normally have a respect for the sub judice——
I cannot allow the Senator to continue to make a speech on this matter. There will be time to make a contribution.
Where will there be time to make a contribution, as a matter of interest?
A suggestion has been made——
Perhaps you know something I do not know, but as of now there is no provision for anybody to say anything.
I will conclude simply by saying that those are my serious reasons for objecting to what I regard as a dangerous proposal from the Leader of the House: that a report should now be passed without any discussion. I would like the record very clearly to show what the Leader of the House has asked this House to do — to pass sentence in this way with no effective hearing. I consider the matter an outrage.
I would like, first, to add my voice to those who wish to express their horror at what happened in Iraq yesterday and to hope that it just will not end there with a little trickle of protest. Perhaps the Leader of the House will go back to the Government and tell them what this House feels about the regime in Iraq. Perhaps we, of all countries, could take some concrete action against that particular country.
Secondly, I would like to second the amendment put forward by Senator Norris. I suggest that this House is taking a very dangerous precedent when it is on notice that this issue is going before the courts — that it just ran through something without discussion. It seems to me it would be far more sensible if we took a mature decision to postpone this matter, the urgency of which is non-existent, for at least one week until the courts have decided whether it is worthy of a judicial review. This is an incredible suggestion from the Leader of the House to come before us and say that this issue, which has been discussed behind closed doors, cannot be discussed in the open. If Senators think the Independent group can tolerate that without taking action, the House is wrong. The Leader of the House now may be prepared to make a cosy compromise with the Opposition whereby there is——
I utterly resent that remark. There is no arrangement of any sort being made.
I said a cosy compromise may or may not be arranged. If that is so, it deprives many of us, who have strong views on this issue, of the opportunity of speaking on it. It is not tolerable that a man should be put before a committee which is now going to be looked at by the courts and then a decision rushed through this House on the nod.
Like Senator Manning, I wish to express sympathy to the family of the Iranian journalist who was executed this morning and with Mr. Donald Trelford and the management and staff of The Observer newspaper with whom he worked, and the family of the nurse who has been sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment. I hope that the Government will convey the feelings of revulsion one feels at the decision to execute Mr. Bazoft. Surely there must be some international forum such as the United Nations or the EC institutions, through which human rights issues of this nature can effectively be highlighted and action taken. However, the reality is that, unless the major powers take a moral stand on issues of this nature by withdrawing diplomatic recognition and cutting their links, then it is unlikely that anything will happen.
We are into the area of making a speech.
I appreciate the Cathaoirleach's accommodation of this issue, but it is something that angers people who have an interest in human rights.
I, too, would like to express my sympathy with the family of the Iranian journalist who was executed yesterday. We are in a position where something specifically can be done with the Taoiseach being President of the EC at present and the Minister for Foreign Affairs at present President of the Council of Ministers. Our horror and detestation of what has happened can be expressed through those channels. It is time we looked at all those complaints that have been coming through in relation to Iraq from Amnesty International and at the whole area of diplomatic recognition that has to be examined in the context of this country and the context of the EC.
Secondly, I may say that I also would support what my colleague, Senator Upton, has said. We, in the Labour Party, want a full discussion of this matter dealt with in item No. 1 on the Order Paper. It is a more serious matter considering the remarks that have now been made by Senator Norris — that the matter is being taken to the courts today and that a judicial review is being sought in relation to the committee. It would be most appropriate that the matter would not be dealt with at present and that it would be left until such time as we have an indication of where the courts stand on the matter.
Could I join with the other Members of the House in asking the Leader to convey our views to the Government of our utter condemnation and rejection of what happened in relation to The Observer journalist? We convey our sympathy as well. As a working journalist myself, it is a fundamental principle that people should be allowed go around, inquire and make matters public. This is an appalling penalty to have to pay for doing that. I hope the Leader will convey our deep concern and grave rejection of this matter.
I, too, would like to join with Senator Manning and the other Senators who have expressed their revulsion about the barbaric regime that executed the young Observer journalist. We are at one in this here this morning. Again, need we say it is but another example of how effective an all-party foreign affairs committee could be? It could have met in emergency session today and put forward the views that have been expressed here in a very co-ordinated and coherent fashion. I just make that remark in passing. I feel very strongly about the lack of a foreign affairs committee.
Hear, hear.
I rise primarily in response to Senator Ross's suggestion that the opposition would rush item No. 1, through "on the nod". There is absolutely no question of Fine Gael being prepared to rush this item through "on the nod". We have very specific views which we wish to place on the record in relation to this issue. It is an issue concerning many matters, not the least natural justice involving two Members of this House. We must hear it in this House. Fine Gael are quite happy for Senator Maurice Manning, our leader, to put our views on the record, but we support the views of others in this House who would like individually to put their views on the record. That is the Fine Gael position.
It is a particularly sad day to be talking about the execution of a journalist who was simply doing his business. I would also support Senator Doyle on the issue of how we should express the views of the Oireachtas in these matters. Those of us in what used to be called the free world, in the days when there was a clearly defined "unfree" world, whatever it was, now are in the position of having some of the most unsavoury friends in the world, from the murderers and those involved in the massacre in Tiananmen Square and who were approved of by most of the western democracies, to the murderous regime in Iraq. It is time we told our so-called friends that we expect them to live by the values we claim to subscribe to. Therefore, we ought to record in a most vigorous way our disapproval of what happend in Iraq this morning.
I am used to various forms of outrage in this House, varying from the real to the pseudo, but I have rarely felt so outraged as at the suggestion that a report on an issue which was discussed in private, which was formulated in private, which was based on procedures that are essentially private and of which there is no formal record in proper detail, would now be voted on by this House without anybody in this House having a right to say anything. I find that entirely astonishing.
What is not astonishing, and what is, unfortunately, a characteristic of a large section of this House on the other side is the unwillingness of any Member over there even to explain why there should be no debate. Nobody on that side has offered to explain why there should be no debate. We cannot have a debate in this House and they have not even got the guts to say why. I know why. It is because they are afraid of what might be said. They are also afraid of debate. They are consistently afraid of debate. They are afraid of democracy. They are afraid of thinking. I do not very often get angry in this House, but I am angry now because they are unthinking, uncomprehending, uninterested and incapable of free thinking they have a majority to suppress debate.
You have made your point adequately.
I am sorry, a Chathaoirligh. If you want to suppress debate in this House you may but I am not——
I am not suppressing debate in this House.
I am not finished.
If I say you are finished, then you are finished because you have made a speech.
I am sorry, a Chathaoirligh. I know the rules of this House as well as you do. I have been here much longer than you, a Chathaoirligh.
I am asking you to resume your seat. I ask you to leave the House, Senator, for today.
That is the most outrageous decision. I am not leaving the House, a Chathaoirligh, except under a vote of this House.
I have asked you to leave the House.
You are behaving in a most disgraceful way. This whole business has been conducted in a most disgraceful way. Your own role in this business is far from savoury.
I am asking the Leader of the House to name the Senator.
I am sorry, a Chathaoirligh, this is a disgraceful issue being handled disgracefully by everybody, including you. You have let down the reputation of this House.