Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 15 Mar 1990

Vol. 124 No. 8

Committee on Procedure and Privileges Report: Motion.

Mr. Lanigan

I move:

That the Report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges (T.279) be adopted and accordingly, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders relative to Public Business and in view of the findings and in pursuance of the recommendation of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges Report (T.279) Senator David Norris be suspended from the service of the Seanad forthwith for one week.

In view of what has been said, I believe the report should be read. It reads as follows:

1. The Committee on Procedures and Privileges met on the 14th, 28th February, 7th March and 14th March 1990 to consider — at the request of Senator Mick Lanigan, Leader of the House — allegations made by Senator David Norris when moving an amendment to the Order of Business in Seanad Éireann on Thursday, 8th February, 1990.

2. The Committee took into consideration the allegations made by Senator Norris concerning the composition of a Cumann Parlaiminteach na hÉireann delegated to Nicaragua when he stated (Ref. Official Report Vol. 123 — No. 16, Col. 1774):

I wish to move an amendment to 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 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 his motion was proposed by you, a Chathaoirligh.

3. The Committee having heard members' reports from their representatives who had attended the Executive Committee meetings of Cumann Parlaiminteach na hÉireann in question noted that, with the exception of the Independent group's report, all of these reports and the official minutes of these meetings did not substantiate Senator Norris's allegations. The Committee in its consideration as to whether the allegations made constituted a breach of privilege decided to invite Senator Norris to appear before the Committee to discuss the allegations.

4. The Committee regrets that when Senator Norris subsequently attended a meeting of the Committee he peremptorily withdrew from the meeting without affording the Committee the opportunity to interview him on the substance of his allegations. However, before he withdrew from the meeting Senator Norris submitted an unofficial report from the Independent group representative who had attended the Executive Committee meetings in question. And Senator Norris confirmed that this document was the only source to and formed the basis of his allegations. The Committee examined the unofficial report and found it to be flawed in a number of important respects; namely it does not substantiate or make any reference to either a proposal being made by the Cathaoirleach to exclude Seanad representation from the delegation to Nicaragua as alleged nor how a properly convened democratic meeting of the Executive Committee was subverted by a reconvened meeting as alleged.

Accordingly, the Committee is satisfied that on the weight of the reports received from representatives of members of the Committee who had attended the Executive Committee meetings and the official minutes of these meetings, the allegations made by Senator Norris are without foundation.

5. The Committee wishes it to be noted that notwithstanding its view that the allegations made by Senator Norris are without foundation, the manner in which Senator Norris made the allegations would of itself constitute a breach of privilege.

Mr. O'Toole

On a point of order, is it not normal practice for the Cathaoirleach to present the reports of the Committee?

An Cathaoirleach

No, it is not.

Mr. Lanigan

The report continues:

6. Accordingly, while the Committee gave careful consideration to establishing whether the allegations could be substantiated or not, its primary consideration was whether a breach of privilege had occurred or not. In this consideration the Committee feels it was not engaged in a disciplinary hearing or trial in any shape or form.

7. The Committee feels therefore that it could not entertain requests made by Senator Norris in regard to the manner in which his attendance at the meeting was to be conducted. To grant any of Senator Norris's requests would have put the Committee's examination on a quasi-judicial footing which the Committee feels was not warranted due to the relative straightforward nature of the allegations and because in these circumstances it would deflect the Committee from its main purpose of establishing whether a breach of privilege had occurred or not, which as stated, was not dependent on finding the allegations to be without foundation.

8. The Committee finds that—

the manner in which the allegations were made by Senator Norris and the use of words by him "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 representatives from the Seanad. It is a matter of particular regret to me that this motion was proposed by you, a Chathaoirligh" constitutes a serious breach of privilege.

9. The Committee regrets that though Senator Norris declared that it was not his desire to unwittingly impugn the honour of the Cathaoirleach, the Chairman or other members of the Executive Committee of Cumann Parliamentary na hÉireann he was not prepared to withdraw his allegations on the record of the House when invited to do so by the Committee.

10. Accordingly the Committee recommends the following composite motion be placed before the Seanad in conjunction with the motion to adopt its report:—

That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders relative to Public Business and in view of the findings and in pursuance of the recommendation of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges Report (T. 279) Senator David Norris be suspended from the service of the Seanad forthwith for one week.

Mr. Manning

In common with anybody who has been involved in this affair I think it has been one of the most unpleasant affairs in all our experiences in this House, that it has done a great deal of damage to the standing of this House. I hope we can get a result as speedily as possible.

I want to put our view as clearly as I can on this matter. When an allegation is made in this House it is made under privilege. Consequently, in our view there is a particular onus on the person who makes the allegation, especially if it is a personal allegation, to ensure that the allegation is accurate and certain. To make an allegation which cannot be sustained or over which there is reasonable doubt is, in our view, to abuse the privilege afforded this House under the Constitution.

In this case two allegations were made. They were two very specific and very particular allegations. One was about the nature of the Inter-Parliamentary Union Committee and one was about the personal role of the Cathaoirleach — specifically that he was instrumental in excluding all Seanad represenation from the trip to Nicaragua. Those are the two specific allegations that were made in the House and with which we are here concerned today. Everything else, to my mind and the mind of my group, is irrelevant. I know from my discussions that these allegations were made in good faith. I know they were made on the basis of what was regarded as bona fide, but what had to be secondhand information.

It subsequently emerged that the allegations were substantiated either by the official record of the meeting or by the recollection of most of the other Members who had been present at that meeting. I checked this with the Members of my own party who were on that committee, none of whom, I have to say, has any particular axe to grind and none of whom has any particular reason to protect the Cathaoirleach. All of these Members were certain that the allegation was not accurate. I conveyed this information to Committee on Procedure and Privileges and to Senator O'Toole, who is a member of that committee.

This brings me back to what is the central point at issue here today. 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. I repeat, the onus, the obligation, is on the person making the allegation to ensure that it is accurate. 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 accurate and truthful. In these circumstances it is my view and the view of my colleagues that the only reasonable and fair course for the person who has made such an allegation is to come to the House and say "I am sorry. I may have been wrong. Doubts have been raised. I withdraw my allegation." Certainly there is no way that that sort of an allegation can be supported with a certainty which is doubly protected by the rights of constitutional privilege. As I say 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 a House of the Oireachtas, I believe that these doubts and the uncertainty should have been expresed, and this was not done.

I regret very much that the matter has dragged on. I regret that it has to a great extent got totally out of proportion. I regret thet it has engendered very bad feelings in the House. If there are lessons to be learned from this unhappy experience I hope that we on all sides can learn these lessons, but I have to repeat the reason we take the strong view we do is that of 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. If that cannot be done — and in this case it cannot be done — I believe the allegation should have been withdrawn.

Mr. Dardis

I think it is widely known in this House and outside it what the attitude of the Progressive Democrats is in relation to the House. Certainly, since I arrived in this place in November many of the things I have heard would confirm us in the view that the House should be abolished. Nevertheless, I realise that it is an important institution of the State, that it is unrealistic to expect it would be abolished without major redrafting of the Constitution and, indeed, that there is not a will among the vast majority of the Members within this House to abolish it. Within that context, and in view of the fact that we are Members of this House, we intend to defend the institution and to defend the position of Cathaoirleach, which is, as Senator Manning has said, a very important office of State.

Within that context it is my view that what has happened within Procedure and Privileges is quite within the remit of that committee, that it is quite within their remit to examine whether people are in breach of privilege so as to regulate the conduct of the Members within this House. I share fully the view that the onus is on the person making allegations to substantiate those allegations. I do not share the view that the onus is on the Chair — and I speak of the Chair and not the person. The onus is not on the Chair to defend those allegations. From that point of view I must say that if I or any Member of this House made an allegation in perfectly good faith and believed it to be true and if it were subsequently shown to me to be not accurate, I would feel it incumbent on me to enter this House, apologise to you and apologise to the House.

The Committee on Procedure and Privileges is not a court of law. This matter has dragged on for weeks and weeks. It should certainly have been dealt with. It is my extreme regret that it has come to this stage. We have had people standing up here regularly complaining about the fact that the business of the House is not being got through. We had a particular situation where An Bord Glas Bill was held up significantly. I submit that it is far more important to the generality of the people and for the welfare of the people that we discuss the legislative programme and not get hung up about nitty-gritty as we do every week. We have a situation here that when we see people in the press gallery we stand up and act like performing seals. On behalf of the people on this side of the House I resent the allegations — some of them were made here this morning — that we came in here as cannon fodder, that we are unthinking, unknowing. We may be peasants, Sir, but we are thinking peasants.

Mr. Norris

I would like to observe, first, that it was not the wish of the Leader of the House that we should have this debate. The intention clearly was to force through this document without any discussion whatever. That, to my mind, is all of a piece with the proceedings of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I would like to put on record the reasons I had reservations about it and the important principle that when a process is itself vitiated the result emerging from that process must also be suspect.

The House, of course, will now know that I engaged in lengthy correspondence on this issue seeking to ascertain precisely what were the procedures under which this inquiry would be conducted. I had six principal reservations. The first was that certain allegations were made in the House but the committee which was to inquire into those allegations was chaired by the person against whom those allegations were made; the committee contained a built-in majority along party lines which was guaranteed to be hostile — we have seen a vote here today on the expulsion of a Member — the expulsion of somebody who would have been one of my principal and ablest supporters in this; I was denied the right of legal representation; I was denied the right to a full and accurate record of the proceedings — and this is a very important point because I want to put on the record of this House that the very report itself is flawed, it is inaccurate. It reports me as saying things which I did not say and imputes to me certain characters in my action that were incorrect. For that reason I wish to have a full record. I was denied that record. Who can say now what was said in that committee? There are no detailed minutes as there were no detailed minutes of the Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting which was changed. Is this House not aware of the fact that there was at one stage a properly constituted delegation selected to go, that I took part in that process and it suddenly, mysteriously, changed? How did this happen? Why is there no record of it? It is not my fault if full and accurate minutes are not kept. I was denied the right to substantiate my case by the summoning of witnesses. I quite agree with Senator Manning, I thank him for his reasoned observations and I concur with him. I have to say that if a full, impartial and reasonable inquiry was able to determine that there was no substance in what I said or thought, of course I would withdraw my remarks. I would have no alternative. But, when Senator Manning says that it is up to me to ascertain, up to me to substantiate, I have to point out that I was not afforded the opportunity of substantiating them. I was not allowed to call a witness and I confirmed subsequently with the person who sent me the memorandum, my representative on this committee, that he stands fully and foursquare behind this. The committee also refused to disclose to me what penalties would be inflicted upon me.

I would like to say — this is a very important matter — that I respectfully asked the committee to adjourn yesterday to allow me recourse to the courts. I had no intention of trying to bully, just to determine certain processes. I would ask the House to bear this in mind: it is highly significant that the report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges does not impugn the memorandum from Deputy Eric Byrne. It does not say it was inaccurate or wrong and I maintain that any lawyer would find it possible to place upon the memorandum of Deputy Eric Byrne precisely the interpretation that I placed upon it and I would like to read it into the record. This is what I received the day after the disputed meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union:

At the opening of the meeting Deputy John Ellis and Deputy Ned O'Keeffe objected to the minutes of the meeting of 14 December 1989 being agreed. They claimed that it was not a true reflection of the agreement arrived at on Item No. 9, Observers at Election In Nicaragua. The Minister of State and Government Chief Whip, Mr. Vincent Brady, TD, said that the numbers should correspond to the formula which is used to decide party representations heretofore. During debate Deputy Joe Jacob argued against sending anybody on the grounds of cost, £13,000. Senator Seán Doherty in supporting Deputy Jacob seconded Deputy Jacob's proposal. Deputy Tom Enright opposed this motion and as a compromise Senator Doherty withdrew his motion and recommended two observers, one Fianna Fáil and one Fine Gael. My arguments and protestations throughout the debate were defeated.

Note: Deputy Ned O'Keeffe at the meeting on 14 December 1989 had been actively supportive of the composition of the delegation then. He completely reversed his position on this occasion.

Based on the minutes of the meeting of the Irish Parliamentary Association on 14 December 1989 the representative of the 18 members, both TDs and Senators that I represent, would be going to Nicaragua.

I arranged for a lottery which was held in the General Office on 9 January 1990. Present were Senator David Norris, Senator Shane Ross, Deputy Tony Gregory, Senator Joe O'Toole and Deputy Eric Byrne. The result of that lottery was that Senator John A. Murphy was chosen to represent the group.

I maintain that that document sustains the interpretation that I placed upon it. I was not told at any stage that it was not true. I was not asked by the Cathaoirleach, uncharacteristically, to withdraw the remark at the time I made it. I was not asked in the House. I may point out that although it is said that all reports and the official minutes of these meetings did not substantiate Senator Norris's allegation, neither did they contradict them. I would like to say that in the report there is one major flaw.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator's time is up.

Mr. Norris

There is an inaccuracy. It says that I confirmed that this report was the only source and formed the basis of my allegations. That is not true. This flawed report proves that I was right to suspect the procedures of inquiry and that I was denied natural justice.

Dr. Upton

I agree with the suggestion that this is a very unpleasant business. I also believe that it has got out of proportion and does not reflect well on the priorities we set for ourselves in this House. There are fairly fundamental matters which it has been attempted to have discussed here in the last few weeks without success. There are a number of questions raised: The question of Irish Life which was raised yesterday; the debate on the Buildings Control Bill which is before us today and which is limited to two hours; there are ongoing requests for a debate on Northern Ireland; there are issues relating to health and emigration and so on. All these matters have been sought as topics for debate, all without success so far.

Essentially there are two problems as far as we in the Labour Party are concerned with what is being proposed today. First, we believe that we have not been given enough time to consider the evidence, although I want to thank Senator Lanigan for the extent to which he has facilitated people in allowing the debate and in allowing the report to be read into the record this morning. However, I have to say that we are still not satisfied with the amount of time we were given. I obtained this document at approximately 10.25 a.m. as I was about to leave my office for the debate in the Chamber. In the meantime, I have been simply working my way through this document while keeping an eye on what is going on. That is an unacceptable way to reach decisions on matters such as we are discussing today.

The second reason we are concerned is that Senator Norris believes there are issues involved in this which should be adjudicated upon by the courts. He will set about implementing that process by going to the courts later this afternoon. I believe we should wait until the courts give its decision before we decide on the issues raised in item No. 1. I do not believe there is anything of sufficient urgency to force us to decide on this matter today. It is for those two reasons that the Labour Party Senators will be opposing item No. 1.

Mr. Ross

I would like, first of all, to hear from the other side of the House, from the Fianna Fáil Party in particular, a little more about this than we have heard. The issue merits that and it is an absolute contempt for the matter involved and for the House that all we have had is the bland reading of the report by the Leader of the House. I want the reasons, the procedures and the way they came to this conclusion spelt out here. The Government party have a continuous contempt for this House which was manifest by the attempt to push this through initially without discussion. Indeed we have had no discussion from that party so far.

Mr. Mooney

Could I ask for clarification for my own benefit? Are the decisions arrived at in the report the decisions of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges representative of all parties in this House or of one party?

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Lanigan can answer that.

Mr. Ross

I can answer that question. They are the decisions of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

Mr. Mooney

Could I ask if the Committee on Procedure and Privileges is representative of all sides of the House or of one party?

Mr. Ross

I am asking for contributions from that side of the House, Senator Mooney.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Lanigan may wish to comment on that when he is replying.

Mr. Ross

Maybe I will get injury time for that interruption. I do not know if the allegations or the statements made by Senator Norris are true or not. I seem to be one of the few people who do not know whether they are true or not. Many people seem to say with a great deal of certainty on either one side or the other. I do not think that is the issue involved and I do not think that is particularly important at this stage. What I think is important is the way the conclusions of this report were reached, the composition of this report and the composition of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. To a large extent the composition and the procedures of this House are on trial today and so are you, Sir, because what is so important is whether they are exposed by this report and whether they are adequate. What we maintain on this side of the House is that that report was flawed from the beginning and the reasons are as follows: because the statements were against the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad and the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad was chairing the committee looking into those allegations. Not only was the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad chairing it but the report is in the name of the Cathaoirleach.

Mr. Dardis

On a point of order I would like to draw the Senator's attention to Standing Order No. 69 which says:

There shall be apointed at the commencement of every Seanad a committee to be knows as the Committee on Procedure and Privileges who shall consist of the Cathaoirleach (who shall be Chairman)...

Mr. Ross

That is exactly the point I was making. I thank Senator Dardis. What I am asking is: considering that the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad was so deeply involved personally in the issue, why did he not withdraw?

An Cathaoirleach

You cannot involve the Chair and you cannot ask questions of the Chair.

Mr. Ross

Then I will ask it rhetorically without expecting an answer. It would seem that all natural justice requires is that when an allegation is made against someone and when there is a committee looking into it, the person involved withdraws immediately from that committee. That is the only sensible, honourable course. The committee's report would have had some credibility had the Cathaoirleach not been personally involved, had the Cathaoirleach not signed the report, had the Cathaoirleach not been the person against whom allegations were made and had the Cathaoirleach obviously not had contributions to make in the discussion. We do not know the details of that discussion or what happened behind those closed doors. What we do know are the conclusions. We also know that the result would have been predestined and determined, by a vote if necessary, and that a majority of those on the committee belong to the governing party. It is not acceptable that decisions of this sort should be made on a party political basis in the ultimate. I do not want the Opposition to take umbrage at this. In the end, whichever way the Opposition had gone, the decision would have been a party political decision. It discredits the committee and this House that the Cathaoirleach did not withdraw from that committee and have it chaired by someone else or refer the matter to completely different procedures. The decision is flawed and cannot be defended in future if someone involved in the allegations chairs the committee and issues the report.

Finally, I do not think Senator Lanigan has taken seriously enough the decision of Senator Norris to seek a judicial review. This is not a tactic. There would be nothing to be lost by postponing such a decision until this was resolved elsewhere. We are going to get into an almighty mess if this is subject to judicial review. There is no rush to go through it today. I will ask him to hold this back for maybe, another week until we can see more clearly where the end of the tunnel is.

Mr. O'Toole

I would like to put on record a number of facts about this case. The difficulty in trying to deal with something in such a short space of time is that there is utter confusion. I would like to make two separate elements in my contribution — (1) the allegations and (2) the method of dealing with them. On that second part I would also like to look at the continuation of authority by the investigation committee.

The facts are very simple. Senator Norris spoke in this House and made allegations against the Cathaoirleach on the basis of the written report to him by our representative on the Irish Inter-Parliamentary Association. On that basis he made allegations here.

On the motion before us today — I would like to put this question to the Leader of the House — the word "unofficial" is used to describe the report received by Senator Norris from our representative on the Inter-Parliamentary Association. I would like to know why the word "unofficial" is not also used to qualify the word "reports" when talking about the other parties making investigation themselves. There is only one official report, that is the record of the meeting. All other reports are unofficial. There is only one being described as unofficial in that report and that is the one that was presented by Senator Norris.

Mr. Norris

It is a written report.

Mr. O'Toole

In dealing with the case the only hard evidence, the only evidence that was not hearsay, the only written evidence, given to the members of the Committee was the evidence on which Senator Norris made his allegations. Everything else that was used to disagree with that was merely hearsay — dúirt bean liom go ndúirt bean léi. I make that point quite clearly. I have represented Senator Norris to say, and he has said it himself here this morning, that in the event that his allegations were proved to be unfounded he would immediately withdraw them as he would have no alternative. That has not been done. Therefore, nothing has changed for Senator Norris from the day he made the allegations here.

We have made a lot of effort in the meantime to meet with people to substantiate or refute his charges. I have met with representatives of other parties. I have talked to people who were at the meeting and I have not been able to find out if the question was asked: "If you did not do what Senator Norris did, who did it?" I would put a question to the Leader of the House, as I cannot address the question to the Cathaoirleach. The Cathaoirleach was at that meeting. I asked the Cathaoirleach, while you were there, well, if you did not propose it, Sir, who did? All he could tell me was that he had no recollection. The question was repeated to him by a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges representing the Fine Gael side and again the Cathaoirleach said he had no recollection. I want to put it on the record that if Senator Norris is incorrect about who made the proposal, then let us hear who made it. That has not been put on the record of Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It was never given to us. That is the fact. Let me be very careful. That is not me saying that Senator Norris is right. I was not at the meeting; I do not know. I am making the case that his evidence has not been subverted.

We will then go to the position of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I want to just go very quickly through the process of the continuation of authority. The Constitution decides on the workings of this House. The Constitution states two points of interest, one of which has been widely quoted this week — Article 13.10

In respect of any utterance made in the House, a Member shall not be amenable to any court or authority other than the House itself.

There is no argument about that fact, that the Member will be amenable to the House. Then it says—

The House shall make its own rules and Standing Orders with power to attach penalties.

There is no doubt about that either.

The House, on this occasion used the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges is set up under Standing Order No. 69, which has been quoted by Senator Dardis, some time ago. I want quite clearly to state — I would appreciate the attention of the leader as I am directing the question directly to him and this is a matter on which I interrupted him in his first presentation — that you were incorrect, Sir, in your interpretation of the powers of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The Committee's powers are outlined in Standing Order No. 69.

Professor Conroy

On a point of order, should not the Senator address the Cathaoirleach rather than the Leader of the House?

Mr. O'Toole

The record will or should show that I am speaking to the Cathaoirleach. I would appreciate an extension of time as the leader will have no other chance of hearing. (1) The Committee may consider matters of Procedure. (2) It may recommend any additions or amendments to Standing Orders. (3) It may report as and when requested to do so as to the privileges attached to Senators and (4) may also consider matters relating to the condition of premises in which Senators carry out their duties if no other committee does it.

Those are the four authorities of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Somebody might say that it is ridiculous that they do not have the authority to set up the examination of a situation like this and I would agree with that. But just because it should be the case does not mean that it is the case and I have not the slightest doubt in my mind — and I am prepared to wager money on it — that any court in the land will support me on that and that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges does not have the power to do what it did, though maybe it should have the power but it does not. That is the fact of the matter. Words do not mean what I say they mean; words mean what they say in the Constitution.

Finally, I would say, in terms of the allegations of the Senator and in terms of the position of the Cathaoirleach, I have served on many committees, from humble boards of management of primary schools to very senior national committees and in every single one of them whenever a matter was personally related to the Chair of that committee, the Chair always withdrew — in every single one of them. That does not take from Senator Dardis's point earlier, that the Cathaoirleach is the chairman of the committee. Of course, the Cathaoirleach is the chairman of the committee, the same way as the local parish priest may be the chairperson of the board of management of the school; but if there is some allegation about him or some relation of his applying for a job or something he honourably leaves the Chair. That is the point.

The other point I would make is that any principle of natural justice would indicate that when allegations are being made or investigated there is a very simple procedure indeed: both sides of the argument are equally represented with an independent person in the middle. I can give you example after example on this matter. There is not the slightest doubt about it. The reason I say that that is important — and I am not saying that that committee might investigate and come up with something different, I do not know, I am not making that point — I am saying that no court in the land, no independent person considering this matter, would say for one second that there was any other way of investigating allegations except both sides being represented and an independent in the middle.

That concludes what I can say in this time. I have dealt with the allegations, with the procedural matter and with the authority of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

Professor Conroy

I intervene in this debate because I hope — perhaps I should say I had hoped — that the Leader of the House having made his statement, the Leader of the Opposition having made his statement, the Leaders of the other parties having contributed, Senator Norris having the opportunity of putting forward his views and Independent Senators having the opportunity of commenting, I did hope that this debate having taken place, it would be in order for me, even at this late stage to suggest to Senator Norris that he consider withdrawing his allegations. I do this having some consideration for the contribution which Senator Norris makes to the House. It is not a contribution with which I always agree, or even often agree, but it is always a very independent and stimulating contribution and it is a great sadness that this contribution should be spoiled by an attempt, first of all, to abuse what is, with great respect — forgive me, but to me it seems an abuse — the great privilege of the Members of the Oireachtas. It is, in some ways at the end of the day, our basic privilege and that is, to say in this House without fear or favour what we believe and if we feel an allegation should be made against anyone or anything, including indeed your good self, a Chathaoirligh, that we have the opportunity to do so and cannot indeed be brought before the courts. We have this enormous immunity which nobody else in this State has. But equally, if I may say so, it does also carry a very grave responsibility.

If I may disagree slightly with the previous speaker, I do not think it is a question of people having to prove that allegations are untrue. That would be — through the Chair — a totally untenable situation. If there is any doubt over an allegation that allegation should be withdrawn. I do make this appeal to Senator Norris to withdraw at this stage.

Mr. Fallon

At the last moment — and I speak as a Member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges — I would support the view of Senator Conroy at this very last minute. I would have to say that Senator Norris, probably in all good faith — not probably but surely in good faith — made the allegations which he made believing them to be accurate and correct and it is probably true to say that he is relying on the word of one person who was present at the Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting. There are a few points which I would now like to refer to. Senator Norris was asked to come to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, to meet us, to talk to us and generally chat over the problem and to answer the allegations.

Straightaway I would have to say this, and I do not mean it in any hostile way, but Senator Norris did use the word "hostile", that the members were hostile. I took exception to that. I was not hostile to the Senator. I went out of my way to find out things. I had an open mind on the issue. I went out of my way to speak to Fianna Fáil people, to Fine Gael people who were on that committee. I have yet to find some one person who will confirm that Senator Doherty proposed that no Senator would travel to Nicaragua. No one can tell me who did but certainly they all would say it was not the Cathaoirleach. People who said that whispered to me that they had no joy in the sense that they would be of a different political persuasion from Senator Doherty, but in fairness they would have to say it was not the Cathaoirleach who seconded that proposal.

Natural justice has been referred to and it is natural justice on two sides, on the side of the Cathaoirleach and on the side of Senator Norris. It demands of Senator Norris — and I say this in all good faith — that he should have checked out fully, not just with one person, but with as many people as he could meet of all political persuasion what actually happened on that particular day. I have done so. I have seen the minutes of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and it does not confirm that the Cathaoirleach made the proposal or seconded the proposal. I am certainly satisfied in my mind that on this issue Senator Norris was incorrect. I am totally satisfied, having double checked, almost treble checked, with as many people as I could meet on that committee. To save all of us not so much embarrassment, but a situation that we would prefer not to have, I appeal to Senator Norris, even at this last minute, to make the apology and we will get on with the business of the House.

Mr. McMahon

I have listened with interest to this debate. I thank the Leader of the House for giving the House the opportunity of debating the matter. I regret very much the remarks and allegations made by Senator Norris. I agree with most of what has been said in this debate, but I would like to support Senator Conroy's appeal to Senator Norris to consider at this late stage withdrawing the remarks. There must be doubt in his mind now, as there has always been in all our minds from the beginning.

I regret very much the manner in which the matter was handled by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. In my long experience of serving on committees I have to agree with those Senators who say that when allegations are made againts the chairman of a committee that chairman should withdraw. Perhaps there is no provision in the Constitution or in our rules for such withdrawal. If there is not, it is a matter we should now look at. I have been involved in many committees where a number of allegations were made but I have never seen the chairman of a committee against whom allegations were made chairing the committee and hearing an investigation of those allegations. The whole matter is a sorry day for this House, as I said earlier this morning, I hope before we are asked to vote on it we will find a resolution other than the one that is in this report. I appeal to Senator Norris to be man enough to withdraw the remarks today.

Mrs. Doyle

I did not intend to intervene but I have listened at length and very carefully to all the contributions that were made and I am a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges so I have heard this debate now for some weeks. I have only one sentence to put on record. I say to Senator Norris that at very least there is doubt and uncertainty. I will not go any further. There is an element of doubt and an element of uncertainty in relation to the allegations that we address ourselves to this morning and that the Committee on Procedures and Privileges has been addressing itself to. I plead with Senator Norris —— this plea comes from all sides of this House: it is not political in any way —— to consider withdrawing, to go no further with the allegation because of doubt and uncertainty and on nothing else. I ask Senator Norris just to consider it on that fact.

Senator Norris is a regular contributor to this House. Not everybody agrees with all of his contributions, but he is a very valued Member of the House and represent a very particular point of view that is very much in the spirit of the Seanad as the Upper Chamber. I plead with Senator Norris, notwithstanding everything that has been said over the weeks and all the discussions, that on the basis of the uncertainty and the doubt, and for no other reason, to withdraw the allegations that were made.

Mr. Costello

We all agree that this is a rather sad business we are dealing with today and that there are matters of considerable priority in relation to legislation that the House could better spend its time on. I have listened to the discussion that has taken place on both sides as well. My concern, which was also expressed by Senator Upton, is the whole area of natural justice in relation to the operation of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the developments that have taken place in relation to the court. We would have preferred a situation where this matter could be postponed and dealt with at another time when matters would be clearer and we would have an opportunity of digesting the information that has been proferred, taking a proper decision and being able to vote if the matter came to that.

I note also the remarks that have been made in relation to Senator Norris withdrawing his allegations. That is a matter entirely for the Senator himself. It is not for us to suggest to him that he should or should not because he is the man who has the fullest facts in this matter. If such a path were taken and the allegations were withdrawn at this time, what is the situation in relation to the motion on the Order Paper? Does that mean that the motion is also withdrawn, that everything falls, that we continue with the business and that Senator Norris will be in the House to discuss the amendments he has on the Building Control Bill this afternoon.

Mrs. Doyle

Yes.

Mr. Mooney

As someone who is not a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and speaking as a Member of the House who is concerned about the standards of this House, may I, in the context of Senator Doyle's contribution and articulating the attitude of Senator Fallon, say to Senator Norris that there is no hostility towards him, either personal or political. Those of my colleagues to whom I have spoken are sad at the developments. All of us, I am sure welcome the Senator's contributions, whether one agrees or disagrees. I have respect for public representatives who take unpopular stands and who have the courage of their convictions. I also, in a strange way, have respect for people who are sometimes imbued with passion and fire in the heat of debate express opinions or make statements that in retrospect they possibly regret. Surely politics and political debate is as much about fire and passion as it is about cold logic — least it should be. Nobody would have any sense of triumphalism at any Member of this House making allegations to any other Member or to the Chair and subsequently withdrawing those allegations if an element of doubt has crept in in the interim. That point has been made repeatedly by all sides of the House.

I take particular note of Senator Manning's contribution, not only in his capacity as a representative of Fine Gael on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, but as the Leader of the Opposition in this House. Senator Manning is not given normally to wild, inaccurate statements and he certainly in most cases brings a finely tuned academic mind to bear on many matters that are discussed here. I listened to his contribution with great interest because it was obviously drafted and executed with great care. That articulates the general attitude in this House. Certainly, the contributions that have been made here have all been drafted and executed with great care and sensitivity notwithstanding any of the other points of the argument. I take note of Senator O'Toole's contribution in that regard.

The essential point is that a doubt exists and where a doubt exists — all Members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges who were present agreed with the conclusions based on their knowledge — I, as an ordinary Member of this House, must accept the conclusions of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in so far as they are made on issues, and make up my mind accordingly; I have no other option unless I listen to my more learned colleagues, who may have access to information that I and other Members of the House do not have. Taking all of those points into consideration and concluding as I started and in the manner and spirit in which I started, I ask that Senator Norris would reflect on the contributions that have been made in this House today and make the decision most appropriate to his own situation as only he can.

Mr. Neville

I have listened with interest and I can understand Senator Norris' frustration with the approach the Committee on Procedure and Privileges took in looking into this matter. I am sure Senator Norris was genuine when he made the statement, that he believed it to be correct. On reflection, I certainly have a doubt that the Cathaoirleach made the proposal in question, and, having listened to the debate, I suggest that the Senator, if he, too, reflects, will have that same doubt. He should consider the position and consider the loss to the House in the next week of his valued contribution. I also feel that the procedures of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges should be addressed at a very early stage to ensure that such confusion and such frustration will not occur again.

Mrs. Honan

I will not delay the House too long. I have been a friend of Senator Norris since he was elected to this House. In the sense that I am well known for losing my head at other times, in other places and, I might add, probably regretting it afterwards, I appeal to the Senator to reconsider this matter. I am not saying that Senator Norris has lost his head but he has certainly got himself greatly upset about this whole thing. This is doing nothing for the House. The other side of this argument is that there are no winners.

Senator Manning's contribution was positive, as is typical of him. Since this sad business has arisen the Progressive Democrat Members, as Senator Dardis has said, are confirmed in their view that this House should be abolished. I have been committed to this House. As Cathaoirleach I lifted it to an even higher level and, if I may say so, contributed to the Seanad becoming a more respected House than was the case before my taking the Chair. Early this morning here we lost the services of Senator Brendan Ryan. I am sure he would have liked to have contributed again today. As I have said, I lose my head at times but I kept my cool when the Cathaoirleach took my job.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator can get it back.

Mrs. Honan

That was the first time in my life in politics that I was able to keep my cool. I appeal to Senator Norris to withdraw his allegation. Otherwise, he is not likely to be here for a month and I would not like to see that happen. This thing could be finished right now.

Mr. Lanigan

I do not want to prolong this debate any more than is necessary. I will address my remarks to a question that was asked by Senator Costello. Of course the withdrawal of the allegations would result in this motion being withdrawn. That is quite obvious. It is no great pleasure for me to have to bring a motion such as this before the House. As most people know I have been working extremely hard over a number of years to try and have this House made more relevant. I have agreed on occasions to do things that were against my better judgment and I have suffered as a result. I make no bones about that.

Allegations in this House have been withdrawn on much more serious and substantive items than the item before us today. If Senator Norris this morning made a simple statement to the effect that he was not able to substantiate the allegation and that, consequently it was being withdrawn, I do not think anybody in this House would think any the less of him.

Points have been raised about the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. These matters can be addressed by the committee at their next meeting, and there can be an urgent meeting on these matters. Matters have been raised which need to be addressed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I will not got into allegations of misconduct or misrepresentation. If, say, my name was mentioned in the newspapers in a derogatory way I would have to consider the matter though I have read in the papers references to conversations I felt that took place in private. Nevertheless I do not think that these are matters we need go into. Before putting the motion I make a simple appeal to Senator Norris to withdraw the allegation which has implications for the House and for the Chair. I will allow him the opportunity to do that before I put the motion to the House.

An Cathaoirleach

Does Senator Norris wish to offer a personal explanation or to say anything?

Mr. Norris

I am somewhat in a difficulty because I wish to be fair. My understanding is that my interpretation of the document is regarded by the House as a possible one although doubts have been raised now. I have constantly appealed to the legal process. I am aware of the situation where, when doubt is raised, a difficulty, is created. I would also point out that the report says I am in breach of privilege and ought to withdraw the remarks whether or not they are substantiated. In that light, certainly if a withdrawal is required in order to allow me to remain within——

Mr. Lanigan

On a point of information, if such a statement is made by the Senator then, of course, the report and the motion will be withdrawn.

Mr. Norris

I understand that. It is a very delicate and complex situation. What I would like to remain on the record is, that notwithstanding what I have heard here today, I maintain resolutely that my interpretation of the document, which has remained unchallenged, is a sustainable one. However, a doubt clearly exists in the minds of a number of Senators and in that light and in the tradition of the late President, Eamon de Valera, placed in a similar situation, I am prepared to accept that it is necessary for me, technically, to withdraw that allegation regardless of my position with regard to whether or not I believe this allegation to be capable of being sustained from the documentary evidence which I produced, which was the only written evidence.

I am trying to move towards a situation where I am not being obstructive to the House in an understanding of the genuine concern that is being expressed on both sides of the House about fairness and impartiality. I have to say that as I appealed to the rule of law, to fairness, to my right to call witnesses and to have my character vindicted I believe that the Cathaoirleach also has the right of vindication. It was precisely for that reason, that I asked that he should leave the Chair and witnesses should be called. I am not certain if that form of words will meet the requirements.

Professor Conroy

If I may interrupt, as the Senator who appealed to Senator Norris to withdraw, I must say I would find it difficult to accept what the Senator has said as a withdrawal and an apology. I ask once again that it be made.

Mrs. Doyle

Could I join in a simple appeal to Senator Norris. He has acknowledged doubt. On that basis and on no other basis I appeal to him to withdraw the allegation. At the very least there is just a doubt. All sides of this House are together on this issue. It is without any rancour that I put that point to the Senator. There is doubt.

An Cathaoirleach

I thought Senator Norris had withdrawn the allegation on the basis of doubt. Is that the situation?

Mr. Norris

The record will show that I chose a form of words very carefully. I do not want to go over it again. That is certainly a possible interpretation of what I said.

Professor Conroy

That is?

Mr. Norris

I certainly indicated my situation precisely. I indicated that I had reservations but that there was clearly doubt and that I understood I was technically required to withdraw the allegation.

An Cathaoirleach

Does the Leader of the House accept that as a withdrawal? If not, I will have to put the motion.

Mr. Lanigan

On a point of information, I would like to know from Senator Norris if he is withdrawing the remark? I do not want a technical withdrawal. I just want him to get up and say that because of doubts he is withdrawing the remark which inpugned the honour of the Chair. It is a simple thing, I do not want anything else. I do not want a technical withdrawal, just a very simple statement before the question is put.

An Cathaoirleach

Has Senator Norris anything to say?

Mr. Dardis

I fully recognise Senator Norris' capacity to use language well and his sensitivity about the way in which he uses language. It is obviously the wish of all sides of the House that an equitable resolution be found to this matter. I am appealing to Senator Norris to go a little further than he has gone in his previous statement.

Mr. Mooney

Could I suggest to Senator Norris that in maintaining his own dignity and intergrity which he is, of course, fully entitled to do, that the Chair also must maintain its integrity and its honesty. It too, cannot be impugned. It is for that reason alone the Chair cannot enter into discussions in this debate. The Chair cannot make any contribution in this debate and it is the Chair that is being impugned. The qualification and choice of words, — I speak here personally would not go far enough to clear any suggestion of wrong-doing on the part of the Chair.

Mr. McMahon

I further appeal to Senator Norris to make it clear because, as one of those who appealed to him earlier to withdraw the remarks, I am not clear if he has withdrawn them. As I spoke about this document earlier I would have to study what he has said to be sure in my mind that he has withdraw the remarks. I appeal to the Senator to make it clear to the Members of the House, who will now be called on to vote on this matter, if he has withdrawn.

An Cathaoirleach

I will put the motion, Is the Leader of the House satisfied that the withdrawal offered by Senator Norris is an acceptable withdrawal?

Mr. Costello

Could I suggest a brief Adjournment of the House for the matter to be considered because a lot of points have been put on both sides? Could we have an Adjournment of five or ten minutes?

An Cathaoirleach

That is a matter for the House to decide. I will be guided by the House on the matter.

Mrs. Doyle

I support Senator Dardis I propose, rather than push this that five minutes careful, cool consideration might resolve the matter. We should give five to ten minutes.

An Cathaoirleach

The Leader of the House.

Mr. Lanigan

I have put a serious of questions this morning, I have made certain observations. I will just ask a very simple question. Is the allegation withdrawn? If the allegation is withdrawn I do not see the reason for an Adjournment. I do not see what good an Adjournment would do. I intend to put this motion if I have to. I make no apologies. I am just asking Senator Norris not to put it into technical language, but to give a straightforward withdrawal, with no backing down involved. There will be no recriminations. It is just a straightforward simple question.

An Cathaoirleach

For the last time, if Senator Norris wants to make a comment that will satisfy the request made by the Leader of the House I will allow him a moment to do that. Otherwise we will have to proceed. I am going to refer to Senator Norris. I will not allow anybody else to speak at this stage because it is becoming inappropriate for the House to conduct its business in this particular way.

Mr. Norris

I would have appreciated a few minutes to consider the matter as I understood that Senator Costello, supported by Senator Doyle, had suggested. It is a somewhat complicated matter.

Mr. Lanigan

It is just a simple question. I will ask afterwards that the Senator withdraws his allegation.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the House suspended for five minutes?

Mr. Lanigan

Yes.

Mrs. Doyle

We thank the Cathaoirleach.

Sitting suspended at 12.30 p.m. and resumed at 12.35 p.m.

Mr. Lanigan

In deference to the wishes of the House we had a five minute Adjournment. I will just ask a simple question — is Senator Norris prepared to withdraw the allegations?

Mr. Norris

I would like to thank the Leader and the Cathaoirleach for their indulgence in this matter. I regret to say that I have gone already as far as I can.

Mr. Lanigan

I move:

That the Report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges (T.279) be adopted and accordingly, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders relative to Public Business and in view of the findings and in pursuance of the recommendation of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges Report (T.279) Senator David Norris be suspended from the service of the Seanad forthwith for one week.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the motion agreed?

Mr. Norris

No.

An Cathaoirleach

The question is: "That the motion be agreed to."

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 30; Níl. 6.

Tá

• Bennett, Olga.
• Bohan, Eddie.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Byrne, Sean.
• Conroy, Richard.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Dardis, John.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Fallon, Sean.
• Finneran, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Tom.
• Honan, Tras.
• Hourigan, Richard V.
• Howard, Michael.
• Kennedy, Patrick.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Lanigan, Michael.
• Lydon, Don.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Mooney, Paschal.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Neville, Daniel.
• O'Brien, Francis.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• O'Reilly, Joe.
• Ryan, Eoin David.
• Staunton, Myles.
• Wright, G.V.

Níl

• Costello, Joe.
• Norris, David.
• O'Toole, Joe.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Ryan, John.
• Upton, Pat.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Wright and Lydon; Níl, Senators O'Toole and Ross.

Question declared carried.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Norris must now leave the House.

Senator Norris withdrew from the Chamber.