Seanad debates

Wednesday, 14 May 2003

12:30 pm

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)

I supported wholeheartedly the Local Government Bill which was intended to abolish the dual mandate. I was entertained by the squawks from some who, even when they grudgingly accepted the abolition, wanted to be able to hand on their seat to their spouse. That is an amazing feudal system in a republic. As regards the legality and constitutionality of the Bill, the President is a fine lawyer. Among her other qualifications, she was Reid Professor of Criminal Law at Trinity and practised at the Bar and is well able to determine whether a Bill may contain constitutional flaws. It is my understanding that any Member of the House can make such a suggestion and, under the Constitution, if two thirds of Members of the House – in concert with the Dáil – oblige her to do so, she must comply. I respectfully suggest that the Seanad has a role to play in respect of this matter.

While what happened in Riyadh was an appalling catastrophe for the people and families involved, it was only too predictable in light of what happened in Iraq. In that context, No. 13, motion 29, in the name of the Independent Members, refers to the moral obligation of the so-called allies to provide medical and rehabilitative aid to the members of the civilian population they injured in the course of the war. I was advised yesterday that there is a legal obligation to do so under the fourth Geneva Protocol. I support Senator Ryan's view that as long as there is injustice in the world, there will be this kind of festering sore and inappropriate violent expression of unease at injustice.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.