Seanad debates
Wednesday, 19 May 2004
Order of Business.
10:30 am
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Order of Business is No. 1, a referral motion whereby the subject matter of motion No. 12 on today's Order Paper is being referred to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for discussion. There is an explanation on the Order Paper and it will be taken without debate, as it is being referred to a joint committee; No. 2 is a referral motion whereby the subject matter of motion No. 13 on today's Order Paper is being referred to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for discussion. There is an explanation on the Order Paper and it will be taken without debate, as it is being referred to a joint committee; No. 3, statements on autism (resumed) to be taken at the conclusion of the Order of Business and to conclude no later than 12.30 p.m.; No. 4, statements on the regulation of the financial services industry to be taken at 1.30 p.m. and to conclude no later than 3.30 p.m. with contributions of spokespersons not to exceed 12 minutes and those of other Senators not to exceed eight minutes and the Minister to be called on to reply no later than five minutes before the conclusion of the statements; No. 5, Interpretation Bill 2000, Second Stage, to be taken at 3.30 p.m. and to conclude at 5 p.m. with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed 12 minutes and those of other Senators not to exceed eight minutes and the Minister to be called on to reply no later than five minutes before the conclusion of Second Stage; and No. 20, motion 20, to be taken from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. There is a Government amendment to motion 20 which did not make the Order Paper but which has been circulated separately. There will be a sos from 12.30 p.m. to 1.30 p.m.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am surprised the Leader has not provided time this morning for statements on the Taoiseach's statement yesterday in the Dáil on his proposal to establish a committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas to look into the Judge Curtin matter. My understanding is that to date, no Senator or group of Senators has been directly informed by the Government on this matter. I am aware a meeting between the Attorney General and a group of Deputies is taking place this morning. I am not aware of any Senator being at that meeting.
How does the Government propose to advance this issue because if one reads Article 35.4 of the Constitution, it is clear that the impeachment of a judge requires a resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas? Will the Leader consider looking at Article 8 of the Constitution which provides that this or the other House could meet in private session to discuss this issue? If this matter comes before both Houses of the Oireachtas, it is vitally important that Senators are equally informed of the proceedings, know exactly what is going on and that this is wrestled away from the leaders of the political parties. I make that point about the leaders of all our parties because in our Constitution no special privileged position is given to political parties. As the Leader is aware, we are only groups in this House. If, under Article 35.4, this matter comes to the attention of the House, we must act as individual Members of the Oireachtas.
It is vitally important for the dignity of this House and its constitutional position that clarity is brought to this matter. To date, we have seen comments made by Deputies but no comments made by Senators on how to proceed. If a committee is to be established, will Senators be on it? I make these remarks only to ensure that the constitutional obligations of this House will be met if such a resolution is put. I ask the Leader to make a statement today on that matter.
Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It would be inadvisable for sound reasons, in view of the sensitivity of the role the House may be required to undertake, to be drawn into discussion on the record of the House about procedures at this stage. I encourage Members not to do so. Those issues can be dealt with in another forum.
Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Regarding the Cathaoirleach's earlier ruling on the matter which we should not discuss, it was a very bad motion and an equally bad amendment. We should call it a draw. The record of the House will show that it was won twice; both sides won and they were as bad as each other. Perhaps we should leave it at that.
I ask the Cathaoirleach to reconsider the issue just raised. It is absolutely crucial that we discuss the procedures for impeachment. I cannot think of anything more important. We can do so without discussing the issue, the person or the case. It is extremely important.
I ask the Leader to consider this very carefully because we are to be provided with a motion next Tuesday. We are taking the same path as with e-voting and the constitutional referendum. Instead of getting everyone's views at an early stage and trying to get everyone on board on this issue, the Government will present us with something and tell us to pass it. That is another lemon, making it five lemons in a row from the Government if it acts in this manner again.
Shane RossJoe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is no party issue involved here. No one on this side is more concerned about this question than anybody on the Government side. I concede that point, since everyone has the same view on the matter.
Whereas the Cathaoirleach is absolutely right that it would be inappropriate to discuss the issue and the person, it is crucial that we discuss the procedure. I want to know what is a fair procedure. I firmly believe that, if a joint committee investigated, came to a conclusion and presented it to the House, its members would not be entitled to vote again in the discussion in the House. That is only one simple point. On the issue of party or group Whips, I agree with the point made by Senator Brian Hayes.
I am not saying this to test the Cathaoirleach's judgment in any way. I respect it because he is well motivated, but I must raise this point with the Leader. We are now walking, with our eyes open, into a situation where we will be involved in a procedure of this House on which we have never had a discussion. I have been a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges of this House for 17 years and we have never looked at this issue. No one has any input. We do not know the right or wrong way, what a fair procedure is or how it should be operated. Everyone's views in this are important. I would like to hear people on both sides of the House say how they feel a fair procedure might be put in place.
I would like to correct one matter. The Taoiseach said yesterday that there were only two precedents for this in previous centuries. He is incorrect because there is a precedent from the 20th century. That paragraph from our Constitution was lifted by the Indian Parliament, which had an impeachment process against a judge ten years ago based on precisely the same words, except that they had "proven misbehaviour" instead of "stated misbehaviour". They went through all sorts of hoops and ultimately the motion was lost after two challenges to the Supreme Court. This is an absolute mess. Why can we not trust ourselves to say how we think we should go about it and present our views to the Taoiseach and Government before they draft their motion? I cannot think of anything more important.
Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator should bear with me for a moment.
Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In deference to the Cathaoirleach, I feel that it is the only way in which I can do it.
Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As the Senator well knows, procedures are ultimately a matter for this House and if a motion to impeach is tabled, procedures will be drawn up, presumably by the CPP, in the same way as any change requiring an amendment to Standing Orders.
Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If something more is required, it can be considered. Does the Senator know what I mean?
Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I absolutely agree with that, but the point is that the procedure must be drawn up, I presume by the CPP, which is the group that always does it. As the longest serving member of CPP, I do not want to participate in designing a procedure for impeachment without having the views of all colleagues on all sides. It would be wrong to do so. We are making a mistake here. Let us not make a Government issue out of this. This is our issue to be dealt with by everybody. I would like to hear people's views and to have them taken on board.
I wish to propose an amendment to the Order of Business, that at early stage today this House put time aside in order to discuss a process of impeachment. I hope somebody seconds it because I believe it to be crucial.
David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am happy to second the amendment.
Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I totally accept the principle of the Cathaoirleach's comments with regarding the process of impeachment. However, we are in unmapped territory. Where is the map to come from? Who is to advise us on it? We will probably need independent legal advice from a constitutional lawyer. I listened to the country's most eminent constitutional expert on radio this morning. Nobody can be in any doubt that we are looking at a very complex legal situation and in that context it must be discussed. Like Senator O'Toole, I do not accept that we are going to simply take what is handed down to us from the other House or from the Office of the Taoiseach. As the Cathaoirleach says, we have to draw up our own process and procedure and have our own view on it. This is new territory for all of us and difficult terrain. In that regard we have to discuss it, probably in private session. The eminent constitutional lawyer remarked on radio that Senators or Deputies who have commented on the whole issue may not be in a position to serve on any relevant committee. We have to examine that and the extent to which we can discuss the procedure and the most appropriate process. In that regard it is an urgent matter and I support the amendment.
John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Everybody shares the view that this is an extremely important issue. Everybody agrees it is essential we do nothing that would be prejudicial. We are entering uncharted waters, as has been stated, and we need guidance and advice on how to sail through them. If this matter was discussed on the floor of the House, someone could inadvertently say something prejudicial. It is essential we do not discuss the particular case at issue. From that point of view we need advice as to the generalities on how to proceed. That is essential, but it is not something that should be discussed on the floor of the House at this stage. It will be up to the House ultimately to make a decision in the matter, independently of the Dáil. From that viewpoint, we need to have our own advice on the matter, but we need to proceed with care.
Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I formally second Senator O'Toole's amendment.
David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator agrees with our view, which is a variation.
Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am sorry. I have some difficulty with hearing. I accept what Senator Dardis and the other Members have said. Senators Brian Hayes and O'Toole speak for us all in a sense in outlining the important points. It is very important that we get the basics right. We do not want to be specific, but the House, a committee of the House or some forum should be provided today to discuss this matter because there are serious questions as regards evidence and how the matter will proceed. At this stage, as I understand it, the matter is not immediate and not decided. All we know from proceedings in the other House yesterday is that a motion will be put forward next Tuesday with regard to the establishment of a committee. As several Members have said, much more needs to be established if we are to proceed properly in due course. As the matter is so much in the public domain currently, I ask the Leader, with perhaps An Cathaoirleach, to arrange, as has been suggested by Senator O'Toole, a meeting for later today to decide how this House should proceed.
Michael Kitt (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
A report last week on the incidence of radon gas highlighted Castleisland but in many parts of the west there has been a very high incidence, causing up to 300 deaths per year. In the absence of new legislation in this area will the Leader inquire if there is a possibility of grants being restored to protect people from this radioactive gas? The Department of Education and Science spent a large sum last year remedying the problem in some schools but it should look at other schools. Public buildings, including the Houses of the Oireachtas, should also be examined because old buildings are a problem. Those built since 1998 have a radon barrier in place. This matter is worthy of debate.
David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I support my colleagues who suggested it is important that we discuss the general arrangements for the establishment of a committee to consider impeachment.
David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, I have. It is important we discuss this without discussing the particular case or the personalities involved. We must get the procedures right, otherwise the issue of that process will be vitiated and fouled.
Can the Leader give us a date on which we will discuss Iraq? I was approached coincidentally on separate occasions by two people, who have some influence in public life, on issues connected with Iraq. They asked me to raise two questions this morning. The first is to ask the Leader to find out from the Minister for Transport what measures are taken to inspect military traffic from the United States in transit through Shannon Airport. It is apparently possible that either torturers from the United States, or their victims, are being transported through our airspace and our airport. Is this a fact? The second question, which is distinct from but related to the first, is to establish whether it is the case that there is an American vessel in Dublin Port carrying depleted uranium shells which contravenes our legislation governing radioactive material. This was reported to the Garda Síochána yesterday which took little interest in the information. We are entitled to ask about this matter. What measures are being taken to monitor, first, military air traffic and its personnel going through Shannon and, second, the military hardware contained in vessels in Dublin Port?
Maurice Hayes (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I too believe we must think carefully about procedures. This is very important in the case mentioned and I am aware of all the difficulties of complication and pollution. I would be happy if the Leader would arrange for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to consider this matter and bring some recommendations to us. This must be done in consultation with what is being done elsewhere. It would be ridiculous if a different standard of proof were required in the two Houses. It would be equally demeaning if this House was seen merely to exist in order to rubber stamp a decision which effectively had been taken elsewhere.
Will the Leader ask the Minister for Health and Children to come to the House at a convenient time to discuss whether he has proposals to discourage the use by manufacturers of alcoholic drinks of major sporting events as a form of promotion and advertising?
Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Will the Leader arrange for the Tánaiste to come to the House to discuss insurance, which is something she promised to tackle? We were told premium prices would come down for motor, home and business insurance. Small companies are closing down on a weekly basis because of the high cost of insurance and we still hear of young people having to pay anything from €3,000 to €6,000 for car insurance. An equality issue is also involved here; non-nationals who have secured Irish driving licences are charged more for insurance than Irish citizens. That is discrimination. It is time we had a debate on insurance.
Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We all agree we must be especially cautious regarding the impeachment process. Any stray or unintended comment could eventually prove prejudicial. I had intended making much the same suggestion as Senator Maurice Hayes, that perhaps the Leader would consider calling a meeting today of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I hope Senator O'Toole will agree to that because it would be important that the matter is discussed in private. There is a need for some consideration of the matter before it is discussed in public session.
Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
People under 18 cannot go into a bookie's shop and place a bet. Likewise, people under 18 cannot play the lottery, yet children can legally place bets on the tote, which is a State-run body. This happens throughout the country on dog and horse racing tracks. Some people may say there is no harm in this, which may be true for the majority of children, but others can get hooked on gambling. This addiction has had a devastating effect on families.
Will the Leader ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to amend the Gaming and Lotteries Act, or other appropriate Act, to address this anomaly in the system? If children under 18 cannot place bets in bookies' shops or play the lottery they should not be allowed bet on the tote.
I must comment on last week's debacle.
Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The only problem was that the other side of the House was asleep when the amendment was put and agreed to.
Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is the only ambiguity that existed last week.
John Gerard Hanafin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I wish to raise the duopoly in the mobile phone market in this country. The profitability of O2 has gone from €81 million to €200 million. That could mean Vodafone, which was the most profitable company in the Irish market last year, will show profits in excess of €300 or €400 million. It is unrealistic to allow any company in a small State to make supernormal profits without putting something back. Those companies should reflect the Irish nature and Irish characteristics and try to comply with the wishes of Irish people regarding regulation and self-regulation, as it currently stands, to ensure——
Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We did own it and we sold it off so that these companies could make huge profits. We should have had this debate four years ago.
Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Please allow Senator Hanafin to speak without interruption. There is a time limit and Members should be fair to Senator Hanafin and others who wish to contribute to the debate.
11:00 am
John Gerard Hanafin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
When a company is making supernormal profits, it is not unreasonable for the Government to ask it to reinvest in infrastructure, such as the provision of WiFi spots and to decrease prices. We are out of line with other European countries and supernormal profits are being made.
Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is a growing state of chaos and crisis in the Prison Service regarding access for prisoners to the medical officer. There were reports yesterday about Castlerea Prison, County Roscommon, where a prisoner was held, stripped to his underclothes, in a padded cell. This is 2004 and if such treatment is continuing in our prisons, there is an urgent need for the Minister to come before the House to explain why psychiatric facilities are not available for this prisoner at the Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum. It is of the utmost importance that this matter should be dealt with. The importance of medical care in prisons is as essential as it is in society in general.
Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Notwithstanding the continuing and justifiable requests in recent weeks for a debate on Iraq, will the Leader consider providing time for an urgent debate on recent developments in Israel and the Gaza Strip? I make this request in light of the fact that the European Council of Ministers issued a statement earlier this week condemning the demolition of over 1,000 houses in Rafah and the subsequent homelessness this has caused, particularly among women and children. Once again the innocent are suffering. I have always taken the view, as has the House, in support of Government policy that we should be even-handed when dealing with matters in the region and that the Israeli state has every right to defend itself. However, we must also consider the question of human rights.
Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amnesty International will be publishing its findings this week which, again, will detail the human tragedy that continues to unfold in the occupied territories. The House must constantly monitor what is happening in the region. In light of recent developments, the statement made by the European Union and the fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is currently acting as the Union's Foreign Minister, it is incumbent on us in this country, which is a friend of both Israel and Palestine, to have an urgent debate on this matter.
Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I support the comments of those, including Senators O'Toole and Maurice Hayes, who stated that while we are not sure how best to handle the process of impeachment, it is important that we deal with it. We must not put this matter aside and hope that it goes away. We must deal with it today.
There was a scheme in China many years ago under which doctors were paid not for the number of visits patients made to them but for the number of weeks they did not visit them. In other words, these doctors were paid for keeping people well rather than for looking after them. Will the Leader draw to the attention of the Minister for Health and Children a scheme that was introduced in Britain yesterday to the effect that family doctors can be paid up to £100 for every patient they keep out of hospital? In the region of 40 primary care trusts which pay for hospital services are said to be interested in this scheme. This appears to be an interesting scheme, similar to that in China, to which my attention was not previously drawn.
David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Chinese will sponsor the scheme.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
With the permission of the Cathaoirleach, I will first address the major issue that is occupying the minds of Senators. When one reads that Seanad representation is to be involved in a joint committee, every Senator called upon would want to behave in the correct fashion, possess the correct knowledge and work to agreed procedures. It is proper that Members would take such duties seriously. Arrangements will be made to brief the leaders of the various groups in the Seanad and I hope to do so today but that is subject to verification. Contact will be made with the offices of those Members to make suitable arrangements. That may meet the concerns expressed in much of the discussion that took place earlier in which many helpful proposals were also put forward. This would be a good beginning to the provision of information and a means of empowering us to know what faces us. I understand from the Taoiseach's statements that it is hoped to have a motion before both Houses next Tuesday for the setting up of a joint committee. It would be wrong to wait for that to come before us on Tuesday and to be passive participants. This has never happened before. We need to be fully briefed and have a constitutional duty to ensure we are informed.
The Attorney General is meeting Opposition spokespersons from the Dáil this morning to brief them on the matter. Arrangements will then be made to meet the leaders of the groups in the Seanad to brief them also. It is better that both groups are briefed separately because although it will be a joint committee, the motion will come before each House. Leaders of Seanad groups will be contacted today to make the appropriate arrangements for such a meeting. Senator Brian Hayes went into the matter in detail and was quite correct to raise it. I suggest we wait until after the meeting before deciding on our next move. I appreciate the fair way the Senator raised the issue and the spirit of co-operation shown by him. The Taoiseach also made it clear that this is not a partisan political matter, quite the opposite.
Senator O'Toole commented on what happened last week. The Cathaoirleach has ruled that matter out of order. On the procedure for next Tuesday's motion, it is important that we are well briefed and know what we are about.
Senator O'Meara said this deals with uncharted territory. It is difficult terrain for us. Senator Dardis said we need clarity on the issue, which is correct. We need to be very careful about what we say on the matter.
Senator Kitt raised the matter of radon gas and requested a debate. A long time ago somebody told me that if I kept my window open at night, I would not have radon gas in the room. I sleep with an open window all the time, winter and summer — a notion I took when I was told that.
Senator Norris referred to the proposed motion. He also asked about inspection of military aircraft through Shannon Airport and mentioned the possibility of people involved in army misbehaviour in Iraq passing through. He asked also whether the American vessel in Dublin Port has hardware of a deadly nature on board. I will make inquiries on that matter.
Senator Maurice Hayes asked about the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I thought of that also but we will take the proposed route first. He also asked for the Minister for Health and Children to be invited to the House to discuss proposals to discourage promotions by manufacturers of alcoholic drinks at sporting events. I will do that.
Senator Terry asked that the Tánaiste be invited to the House to discuss insurance. The PIAB is due to commence work this week or next.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have on the spot knowledge; it has already commenced. The Senator also wants the House to discuss the issue of equality in the context of insurance. I will ask the Tánaiste to come to the House.
Senator Ó Murchú also suggested discussing the impeachment process in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Senator Cummins spoke about underage gambling. We all got cards from people who are very concerned that young people can bet on the tote. This completely negates the Gaming and Lotteries Act. The Senator called for an amendment to the Act. That is a finance matter and I will ask the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, to consider it.
Senator Hanafin raised the matter of the huge profits being made by the duopoly in the mobile phone market here. He asked whether prices could be reduced, bearing in mind the propensity of the Irish to talk.
Senator Ulick Burke spoke about the lack of psychiatric services in the Irish prison system. That is a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I will ask him to consider debating the matter.
Senator Mooney called for a debate on Iraq and the issues in Gaza. The difficulty is that the Minister will be away this week and next week on important EU business. It is approaching the busiest period, but there is a standing invitation regarding that debate.
Senator Quinn suggested paying money to doctors if they keep people out of hospital. I am sure that in his case it is good living that has kept him healthy, wealthy and wise. I do not see why I should pay anyone if I am in good health. That is owing to my own regime, although it is not always very healthy. It is a dotty notion because it is not doctors who keep people out of hospital but people themselves. However, the Senator subscribes to the idea.
Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senator O'Toole has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business to provide that statements be taken on the process of impeachment for one hour at 1.30 p.m. today. Is the amendment being pressed?
Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will defer moving the amendment until tomorrow to see how matters develop. However, it is not enough for one person from each group to deal with this information.
Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Everybody should have the opportunity to contribute to the debate.