Seanad debates

Tuesday, 13 December 2005

2:30 pm

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)

I support the calls for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to come to the House and make a statement. We should have a debate on the matter, at the very least. However, I find myself in some disagreement with my colleague and friend, Senator Brian Hayes. I do not think the Connolly response is more important than the issues facing the Minister. Mr. Connolly is a single individual and I do not think he should be forced into a libel court. That is a choice he can make, if he wishes, but I do not agree with the argument that if someone makes an allegation against an individual, he or she must go to the libel court.

There are issues of principle at stake. I am worried because I detect what I would call the "Eileen Flynn syndrome" whereby the Minister does not like the political background, political choices or the acquaintances of a certain individual and therefore the law does not operate to protect that individual's rights. The law should do so and I find it extraordinary that the Minister used parliamentary privilege in the way he did, in particular his use of a written reply, where he could not be interrupted by the Ceann Comhairle and told to stop because he was naming people outside the House.

I remind Senators that this is the Minister who introduced penalties of up to five years in prison for gardaí who leaked information to journalists. The Minister said, in that context, "I am not supposed to just throw out into the public domain facts which haven't been proven in court about people". What has changed to enable him to completely reverse this position and to do precisely what he said he should not do?

We are entitled to an explanation because the chairman of the Centre for Public Inquiry, Mr. Justice Flood, has argued that the Minister's action amounts to a drumhead court martial. In other words, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has established himself as judge and jury. Professor Walsh has argued that the question of undermining the Constitution arises in this scenario. This is a very serious and regrettable situation.

One final question, which should be asked ——

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.