Vol. 125 No. 3
I move:
That Seanad Éireann waives it right to seek costs against the Applicant, Senator Norris in the High Court Judicial Review Number 67 of 1990 provided the Applicant discontinues and withdraws his proceedings against Seanad Éireann in the said Judicial Review without seeking costs of same.
On a point of order, I do not wish to upset the Leader of the House but it is very difficult to hear what he is saying. I would appreciate it if he could——
Poor acoustics.
I doubt if it is a cause of concern only to the Senator. The system in the House seems to be inadequate but I do not think Senator Fallon can be held responsible for that inadequacy.
This is a technical motion and a legal requirement to ensure that Seanad Éireann is withdrawn from the judicial review proceedings. The main reason for seeking the withdrawal of the Seanad from these proceedings is to ensure that there is no legal precedent in any shape or form whereby a House of the Oireachtas was a named respondent in High Court judicial review proceedings. This motion is of narrow scope and the settlement of the judicial review does not arise under it.
On a personal level, as leader of the Fianna Fáil group in the Seanad, I am happy that this long running saga is near a successful conclusion. I should like to thank all those involved in this very difficult situation. In admitting his error of judgment, as he did previously, the Cathaoirleach is continuing in a logical follow-on to accept full responsibility and has agreed to pay the costs, thus avoiding what many people believe would have been wrong, that is the taxpayer having to pay the costs.
I want to refer to the point raised by Senator Hanafin. Senator Hanafin, like every Member of this House, is concerned with this issue. I applogise to Senator Hanafin if I was not as forthcoming as he would have liked me to be. I should like to think that this wider constitutional issue between the courts and the Oireachtas will be addressed in the future. I do not know if this should be done in this or in another forum on another day but it seems to me that it should be done in another forum on another day. I should like to see this issue resolved, as I am sure everyone in this House and the other House would. It is a matter of great concern to everybody.
I am calling Senator Maurice Manning.
Will I be allowed to reply to——
The House agreed on the Order of Business that there would be one speaker only from each political group. In those circumstances, I understand that the Leader of the House, Senator Fallon, was the speaker from the Fianna Fáil group. I must stick to the decision which was made on the Order of Business.
I accept your ruling without question but I should like to point out that as it was Seanad Éireann which was involved in the High Court proceedings the issue should, therefore, be discussed in this House and not in some other forum.
I appreciate the view expressed by the Senator.
As we all know, this has been a long, unhappy and unfortunate episode in the history of this House. It has done great harm to the House but I believe that the Cathaoirleach, in assuming personal responsibility and agreeing to personal liability in this matter, is behaving in a way which, in the circumstances, is both proper and generous. I commend him on this and hope today will mark the end of this episode.
What we as a party have said about the various elements in this episode is on the record of the House and is there for all to see. My group have no intention today of reopening those matters or redebating the issues of the past couple of months, and I certainly do not think it would be in the interests of the House so to do.
However, there are two matters which require clarification and brief mention today. The first is the original allegation made against the Cathaoirleach. It is in everybody's interest that this matter be investigated through a procedure acceptable to both sides. It is in everybody's interest that the true facts of this matter be established. I believe that everybody in this House wants to see the facts of the original allegation established.
The second point has been referred to by the Leader of the House and Senator Hanafin. This is a more complex issue and deals with the constitutional implications of what has happened. A number of my senior colleagues, Senator McDonald, Senator McMahon, Senator Howard and Senator Neville and others are extremely concerned at what they see as a major change in constitutional practice. It is their view that the decision of the High Court crossed a constitutional divide which had hitherto remained uncrossed and this is a matter which needs to be clarified in all our interests in a calm and reasoned way. I would welcome an undertaking from the Leader of the House that this issue will be attended to as a matter of urgency and that he will come back to the House with some proposal where the House can play its part in seeing that these issues are resolved.
Hear, hear.
I am not sure that all the issues are possible of resolution. It has been an unfortunate experience in this country that many issues are resolved only after a lengthy court case. There is no guarantee as to the outcome of such cases. Nonetheless, in so far as this House can establish clarity on these matters, we should do so as a matter of urgency.
Finally, I sincerely hope that this motion will end the episode and that out of all these very unhappy months can come a stronger, reformed, energised and relevant Seanad.
I do not wish to speak on behalf of the Independent group of Senators. I was not aware that Senator Norris or Senator Joe O'Toole, the leader of the group, were not going to be here today. As I have not been apprised of the facts I do not want to speak on behalf of the Independent group of Senators.
I agree with previous speakers that this has been a most unhappy episode. Indeed, since I became a Senator there seems to have been nothing except unhappy episodes of one kind or another. I hope this motion will bring this unfortunate incident to a conclusion so that the House can proceed to deal with the serious business — long agendas, motions and so on.
On behalf of the Progressive Democrats, I wish to say that we believe the Cathaoirleach has acted correctly, properly and in the interests of the House on this occasion. I hope the matter can now be brought to a conclusion to everybody's satisfaction and that the attention of the House will not continue to be diverted by matters of this nature, legal action and the like.
I share the disquiet which has been expressed by several people about the constitutional implications of this case. Fundamental questions have been raised about the nature of the relationship between the Oireachtas and the Judiciary. There is a need to address those issues and clarify the position but I agree that that is a matter for another day. The onus is on us to fulfil the serious obligations we have to the people to conduct our affairs in a business-like, professional and efficient way. We must deal with the legislative programme which the people require us to do on their behalf. I hope we can now put this matter behind us.
I welcome the motion before the House. It will, I believe, permit all Senators to concentrate on the primary business of the House and set about restoring its authority. The whole affair ensures that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and other committees of the House, will conduct their business in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The fact that taxpayers did not have to pay costs in this case ensures that Senators who got to the courts will do so on the same basis as other citizens. I welcome the fact that this business has ended without any special privileges being accorded to any group or any person, irrespective of who they are. I share the concern of Members about the broader constitutional implications of this whole affair and I look forward to them being clarified in a calm and dignified manner. I hope the House will have a role to play in that clarification.
