Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I thank Senators Norris and Henry for tabling this motion. I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I look forward to his contribution.

As for the issues raised by Senator Ó Murchú, I concurred with him until the final two minutes of his contribution. The Senator raised some valid points in an honest fashion. However, I refer to the point made earlier by Senator Brian Hayes, that this proposal is intended to adorn and give added value to the work of the Seanad. This proposal is what Members envisaged when discussing Seanad reform.

Senator Ó Murchú's point was that Members should not take this course of action because it would devalue and detract from the work of the House and that the debate should be conducted in the Chamber. He asked what the committee should do and whether it would be investigative. The answer is that as we speak, five hard-working Members are sitting on a committee, which was set up by the House to deal with a particular issue by sifting through the evidence and bringing the information back to it. I am the only Member who questioned whether this was an appropriate way forward and certainly no Government Member had a problem with it. I refer to the Committee on Article 35.4.1° of the Constitution. It is examining the evidence available and will present it to the House, where it will be discussed.

This is precisely what is proposed in this instance. It is not in any way different as it is concerned with collating information. What are Members afraid of? Information is being sought. A number of Members, including Senator Ó Murchú, made a point with which I agree. I do not know whether there is anything wrong going on at Shannon Airport. However, as Senator Mooney noted at the outset, my trust and confidence in what is going on there was demolished in his words, "in the dust of Shannon Airport last Sunday morning".

How should the allegations be answered? Neither I nor any other Member can do so, although they can entertain suspicions or be in favour or against a particular opinion. The way to deal with a problem is to accumulate as much information as possible. In this case, and I find myself in complete agreement with Senator Brian Hayes, rather than asking someone in Switzerland or anywhere else to do it, Members should examine what is taking place in their own backyard and should assemble the information.

A Government majority could be nominated to the committee, as this is not an issue. If evidence was put in front of them, I trust that all Members would make their own minds up. However, no Member in this debate has indicated why this proposal would be a bad thing. The issue of how people in the United States of America might react has been adequately dealt with by Members from all sides of the House. This proposal is not an indictment of the citizens of the United States, although it certainly denotes a questioning of its leadership. At the very least, a question mark exists in this respect, The events within Abu Ghraib took place within the past two years. Moreover, the House debated the International Criminal Court yesterday. For a long time, Members have been aware of the attitude of the present United States leadership towards the United Nations.

These are issues on which we have held different points of view and we need to remind ourselves of that. Although this opinion might not be shared throughout the House, any self-respecting public representative in a democracy must question what is happening in Guantanamo Bay. We need not question the guilt of the people, but the arrangement by which they are exiled onto foreign soil to ensure they have no access to the human and civil rights of the home state. I have a question about that. I do not expect people to agree with me. We know what has happened in the past week. If somebody tells me that people who go on hunger strike or die do so as a publicity lark I do not have trust and confidence in that suggestion. While I do not know what is happening in Shannon, there is doubt in my mind what I would like to have filled. There is a vacuum of information, and nature abhors a vacuum. I would like us to put the information together and have it available.

Another issue is that of military law. I listened to Senator Minihan's statement. What is the appropriateness of having two systems of law in a country? I followed closely last week's trial of members of the Irish guards in London and I conclude that the civil rights of soldiers, as citizens, are not being properly observed in the courts martial to which they are subject. Some military people feel they are in a parallel universe to the rest of a democracy and that they can run a different system of rights. We have always understood that to be the case in a war situation where people have to engage and summary justice has to be dealt. However, where we are examining the rights of people and how they are to be judged, military law is inappropriate.

In Senator Norris's mild and simple proposal we are asking to establish a committee to put as much information together as we can and after this to do what Senator Ó Murchú suggested, namely, bring it here and make our minds up. It is an intellectual exercise to come to the conclusion that it is better to make decisions based on information gathered by people we trust and know, our people, than to try and do so in a vacuum. I cannot answer the question.

I have been careful and have disagreed with Senator Norris on many occasions about Seanad business. I have listened to Senator Dooley and others talk about it from another point of view and I have not agreed with them either. I am in the middle. However, I know the issue raised here is appropriate in a democracy and would put together the process by which we would gather information to allow us to come to our own conclusions. Although we may not agree on these conclusions, it would move us forward. When we deny ourselves access to information it seems people see information as a Pandora's box, which is not always the case. When we have the information it will illuminate the problem and allow us to come to a conclusion. While I would trust Senator Ó Murchú to come to a conclusion no different to my own if he had the information on this issue, I cannot allow the House to vote to deny itself the opportunity to gain information and come to a conclusion. I support the motion.