MISCELLANEOUS

Each speech listed here is an edited speech. If you'd like to see the speech or debate in full, please go to the Oireachtas website and click on "Seanad Eireann" and then "Seanad Debates" and click on the relevant date as listed with each speech on this page.

Expressions of Sympathy – Joe Doyle (Former Member) (14/07/10)

British Royal Visit (24/06/10)

Ivor Callely Statement (02/06/10)

Ivor Callely Expenses (01/06/10)

Sudden Death of Senator Kieran Phelan(26/05/10)

Seanad Business (19/05/10)

Seanad Business (18/05/10)

Seanad Reform (06/05/10)

Compulsory Retirement from the Irish Army of Lieutenant Dónal de Róiste (10/03/10)

People Joining Politics/Public Sector (10/02/10)

Seanad Reform (20/01/10)

Property Services (Regulation) Bill 2009 (21/05/09)

Business of the Seanad (19/05/09)

Business of the Seanad (13/05/09)

Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2009 (24/03/09)

Seanad Reform (11/03/09)

Government St. Patrick’s Day Travel (04/03/09)

Compelling Attendance at Oireachtas Committees (Anglo Irish Bank)(17/02/09)

Human Rights Issues (04/02/09)

Seanad Business - Proposal to Adjourn the House (20/01/09)

Seanad Business (09/12/08)

Seanad Business (13/11/08)

Budget Cuts for IHRC (05/11/08)

Abbey Theatre (26/06/08)

Ministers’ Travel for St. Patrick’s Day (12/03/08)

Literature (06/12/07)

Public Servants and Oireachtas Members (04/12/07)

Seanad Reform (28/11/07)

Taoiseach's Salary Increase (20/11/07)

Taoiseach's Salary Increase (07/11/07)

Seanad Reform (13/09/07)

Seanad Reform (03/07/07)

Seanad Éireann (01/05/07)



Petitions Committee (04/10/06)

Taoiseach’s €50,000 “Loan” (27/09/06)

Bureau of Military History (17/05/06)

Máire Buckley (09/05/06)

1916 Rising Commemoration (26/04/06)

Shot at Dawn Campaign (28/03/06)

E-Government (23/02/06)

1916 Rising Commemoration (15/02/06)

1916 Rising (02/02/06)


Back to top of the page



Expressions of Sympathy – Joe Doyle (Former Member)
14/07/10 - …. At all times I found him to be a generous, open and humorous man. He was a great man to make a cutting comment out of the side of his mouth because he was never quite sure about what Independent Members should do, whether they should join a party or go about their business and leave matters to real politicians. He had extraordinary passion, of which I am sure his family are aware. The best politicians are the ones with conviction and passion, whatever the issues of the day. He had that passion for his area and the city. I recall a time when the Dodder flooded and he was so upset at the damage caused by the flooding to people’s property in the area in which he lived. He was their representative; he was part of and suffered with them. He was a gorgeous man in that regard. He was a man of conviction and devoted to his church.

Joe was honest, diligent, humorous and gentle. He said many times in the House that he had been a Deputy, a Senator and a member of the city council but that the pinnacle of his political career was being elected Lord Mayor of his city. ….. We thank his family for being supportive of him and enabling him take on the very important role in politics of representing the people of his area. Without that commitment, without people like him, politics would die a death and be all the poorer. At the time of his death one of the local priests commented that he had had no enemies. It struck me that this was a beautiful, personable and attractive epitaph for anybody to be given and that it had been truly well earned.

Back to top of the page


British Royal Visit
24/06/10 - …... This occasion begs for a debate on nationalism and republicanism and on the narrow introspection of nationalism, which refuses to encompass the broader view of the world of Tone republicanism of Catholic, Protestant and dissenter. It appears we are about to invite the direct descendant of one of the founders of one of the great Protestant religions to visit this country.

This is causing extraordinary difficulty for some members of Irish society. We should be proud enough to stand up and endorse our own republic, show ourselves to be grown up, stand toe to toe with our neighbours and invite the monarch of a neighbouring state to come visit us as a neighbour and simply say “we are proud of what we are and we respect what you are”.

Back to top of the page


Ivor Callely Statement
02/06/10 - … in outlining the circumstances of this entire fiasco to either the Cathaoirleach or the House, if Senator Callely chooses to so do, Members should be clear about what they expect. I am clear about where this must go. It should deal with all the unanswered questions and concerns. It should explain any mistakes or incorrect claims and should calculate precisely and put on the record the quantum of overpayments. Moreover, it should recognise the damage to politics and the House.

…. there should be details on the redress proposed by the Senator. I do not want anyone to ask subsequently what did Members expect because I have just outlined what I expect, namely, five issues and five matters to be dealt with. Moreover, this should be placed on the record of the House in a clean, simple and straightforward fashion. This is how Members will move on …... I look forward to what he has to say and there will be time enough to come to conclusions thereafter.

Back to top of the page


Ivor Callely Expenses
01/06/10 - It is regrettable that Senators were in the public eye all over the weekend for all the wrong reasons again. ………. I want to be absolutely fair, to respect all of the House’s procedures and the law and to acknowledge the fundamental importance of the assumption of innocence in our democracy.

I am not rushing to any conclusions about anything but it is, nevertheless, crucial to the image of our Parliament and, in particular, to this House, that we deal with and dispose of any breaches or apparent breaches of our code of conduct. ... I cannot answer a question as to the personal circumstances of any Senator and I cannot answer the question as to where a Senator lives. All I know about where a person lives is I have recourse to the Electoral Act which provides that where a person is registered to vote is where a person is normally resident. That is required by law.

Apart from that, I seek guidance from the Cathaoirleach in this regard. I believe there is a responsibility on us as a House to respond in an appropriate fashion either by requesting the Senator to make a personal statement or by conducting an investigation through the Committee on Procedures and Privileges or the Committee on Members’ Interests of Seanad Éireann or by triggering a complaint under the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995.

I am not rushing to judgment as I do not know the facts of the case. It is all over the media, however, and it is creating a certain view in the eyes of the public. It is reflecting on all politicians and, in fairness to the Member, rather than let it drag on, it should be brought to his attention that we are concerned about this and that we want it dealt with. I am not prepared to let it sit without some action being taken.

Back to top of the page



Sudden Death of Senator Kieran Phelan
26/05/10 - Sudden death stops us in our tracks and we have all taken a hard hit this morning. We on the Independent benches would like to be associated with the expressions of sympathy to Kieran’s wife and family and his Fianna Fáil colleagues and staff. He always came across to us as being a good natured, honest and decent person. He was a person of integrity, on whom we could rely. He was a man of his word and always loyal. He had a total commitment to and love of this House. He had a voting record in the House that, I believe, was the best the last time I checked. I do not know whether that was out of complete loyalty to his Whip, with whom he was very friendly. He took pride in his country, particular pride in his county and party, which he was always ready to defend, even at the worst of times, and, of course, pride in his family. As late as yesterday at the meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges he played an active and committed part and, again, showed clarity of mind and confidence in dealing with some tricky issues. He was a man who loved life and politics. … those on these benches wish to be associated with the expressions of sympathy. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam. I express our sincere condolences to his family, colleagues, friends, staff, etc.

Back to top of the page


Seanad Business
19/05/10 - I wish to return to the point I made yesterday about legislation. …. I note that yesterday in the other House there was a row and questions about why the Multi-Unit Development Bill 2009 was reposing in the Seanad. I do not blame Members of the other House for asking what we are doing with the Bill on Report Stage. We have business that could be done now. The Government should either move ahead with these Bills or produce its own, but we should be spending at least half our time dealing with legislation. I ask the Cathaoirleach to use his influence in this regard. ….. If it (Government) cannot provide legislation, there are 12 Bills on the Order Paper produced by the Opposition at no cost to the Exchequer or the Civil Service, by employing our own draftsmen and so on, which could be dealt with. I ask the Leader to consider this seriously in order that we would be seen to be doing our work.

Back to top of the page


Seanad Business
18/05/10 - The lack of legislative business both last week and this week and for the foreseeable future is worrying for both Houses. I do not point the finger, however, at the Leader, as I am aware of how hard he works to have legislation introduced in this House. However, I do point it at the Government, as there is something wrong in that a raft of legislation has been promised. Last year we were promised that the companies consolidation Bill would be before the House last autumn; we were then told it would be before it this spring, but it has not arrived. The local government consolidation Bill is also long overdue and I do not know where is the Seanad reform Bill. An education patronage Bill and many other Bills have been promised.

When the Leader inquires about this matter, he will be told that the draftspeople are tied up with this, that or the other Department, but the reality is that there is a shortage of draftspeople. Legislation is more important than the Government embargo on recruiting staff. We should focus on the lack of legislation and demand that the Government ensure there are enough draftspeople to deal with pending legislation.

Back to top of the page


Seanad Reform
06/05/10 - It is a while since we received any response from Government Members on the question of Seanad reform, to which they were all committed. Can we take it that the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, has conceded to the main Government party on the issue? Is Seanad reform a dead duck? Is it dead in the water? Are we likely to hear any more on it? We were promised legislation on at least three occasions and the Minister assured us that he would bring it forward. It now seems Fianna Fáil has effectively outmanoeuvred the Green Party which was completely committed to Seanad reform but is now not able to deliver on it. I would appreciate a response from the Leader in order that we can establish that nothing is happening. If it is a win for Fianna Fáil over its Government partners, it should tell us in order that we can see where we are going. At least, we would then know where various parties stood on the issue.

Back to top of the page



Compulsory Retirement from the Irish Army of Lieutenant Dónal de Róiste
10/03/10 - The most important aspect to recognise is that we took a great deal of time to frame this motion. … the motion does not contain allegations against anybody. …. I want to confirm, having been there, that there is no doubt there were shady characters at the time. During those years, the price of a pint was 2s 5d and I had 10s to spend on a Saturday night. That was the price of four pints on Merrion Row, in either O’Donoghue’s or Teach Uí Néill across the road from it, and the 4p bus fare back to Drumcondra. All of these people were in that milieu…... The Wolfe Tones, the Dubliners and Saor Éire were there as were various groups of republicans. I was as guilty by association as anyone in those locations.

The judgment I have to offer my colleagues is that I do not believe Dónal de Róiste was in any way a subversive undermining the State. Do I think he m ixed in the wrong company for an Army officer? Yes, without a doubt. ... These issues are beyond discussion so what are we speaking about? The Government’s amendment is fair but I have two points to make on it. In order to know the man and make a judgment an interpersonal contact is crucial, but the amendment states the Judge Advocate General will nominate somebody to review the case and that Dónal de Róiste will be entitled to make a written submission. To get a true feel of what this is about, an engagement between the nominee and former Lieutenant de Róiste should be allowed.

My second point on the amendment is crucial. Even though it is 40 years later everybody thinks people are on trial. The Army feels that if it goes the wrong way it will reflect badly on it. Let us go beyond that; this is not what anybody is interested in. … I ask him (Minister) to ensure that whoever we nominate for this job has no connection, is no way tainted by, and is no way under the influence of the Army in any way.

Senator Harris and I have confined ourselves to the principles of natural justice in dealing with the matter because they would have been live at the time. We noted in particular that Dónal de Róiste was denied any opportunity to rebut or answer the charges made against him either at trial or at court martial. A court martial, being under the auspices of Army, has slightly different rules of court and perhaps slightly different burdens of proof are required. However, at least it provides a hearing. He was refused any fair opportunity to present his case at the time. He was refused access to legal advice and denied access to the files of the case. He was never informed of the allegations made against him. He was never given the right to be heard in his own defence. The law has been changed to ensure this can never happen again and in that sense we are looking at what we would do were it to happen now.

I would like this matter to be resolved without assigning blame to anybody. ….. what this young man needed was a kick in the backside and a strong mentor or, as Senator Harris stated, he should have been told to gather evidence against the people. It should have been dealt with differently. This career went wrong unnecessarily. More than that, what concerns us is that it is a life destroyed and a family split. This hurt will not go away and I would like the Minister of State to deal with it in such a way as to relieve a hurt that has been there for more than 40 years.

Back to top of the page


People Joining Politics/Public Sector
10/02/10 - I deliberately did not speak about George Lee on yesterday’s Order of Business because I felt we had heard too much about it already. However, …..People should look at what we do and how we do it. Let this be a lesson to those who called for Bill Cullen or Michael O’Leary to run the country. A particular skills set is required for political life and although we should not be completely cynical by saying we cannot have people coming in here, we need to consider how we can deal with this issue. The recent report of the Joint Committee on the Constitution offers one solution with its proposal that people would be appointed to Government through the Seanad. These would be carefully selected people who possess particular skills rather than celebrity candidates. However, we must recognise that skills such as persuasion, perseverance, obstinacy and leadership are required. One cannot run the country solely by having the skill to tell someone: “You’re fired”, or to demand that one check in on-line for a chair in the accident and emergency department. There are different ways of dealing with these issues.

The question of patriotism arises in respect of people coming forward for public service. Criticism is constantly aired in this House against the boss of the HSE but, to me, that man is a patriot in the real sense of the word. He put himself forward to run the HSE, yet he gets nothing but stick and criticism from all sides, including me on occasion. We should recognise that the service given by such people helps to make Irish life work.

Back to top of the page


Seanad Reform
20/01/10 - While he (Minister Gormley) has taken this issue in hand, it is important to recognise that he is being outmanoeuvred by the main Government party. …. I do not agree with everything the Minister is doing. In the interests of making progress, however, I am of the view that we should do as he suggests in respect of this matter. … it must be stated that the method of election relating to this House is nothing other than anachronistic, unrepresentative and undemocratic.

There are a number of issues which we should consider. ….. I am not, however, opposed to a system whereby those in the first elected tier in a democracy elected the members of the next tier. That is a well tried process in many democracies and I do not have a difficulty with it in principle. My difficulty arises in respect of the fact that in this country, said system is used to elect 43 out of 60 Senators.

How should we deal with this matter? I am of the view that for each of the vocational panels there should at election time be an inner and outer panel. In the case of the agricultural panel, for example, the former would be comprised of those nominated for election by any four Members of the Dáil or Seanad and the latter would be comprised of those nominated by the agricultural bodies. In my opinion, those on the inner panel should continue to be elected by members of local authorities and those on the outer panel should be elected, in one form or another, by people attached to the nominating bodies. That would make sense.

The position is similar with regard to the University Panel …. In 1979 we took a constitutional decision that the franchise should be extended to the other colleges and this should be done immediately. We are of the view, however, that nothing should be agreed until everything is agreed. It would be just too easy to change the position only as it relates to the university panel.
Every citizen should, in some form or other, have one vote — only one — in the Seanad. The idea of people having seven votes is nonsense.

Those who state that the Seanad should have more power do not understand its function, as established under the Constitution. It would be completely wrong for the Upper House to pervert permanently the will of the people as expressed in the Lower House. Our job is, by force of argument, to introduce new information, put forward new perspectives and try to delay, inform, moderate, modify and add to legislation. The argument that the Seanad can never overturn the Dáil is about as good as that which states that there should not be an Opposition because it cannot overturn the Government. This argument is nonsense and does not stand up.

Back to top of the page



Property Services (Regulation) Bill 2009
21/05/09 - This is a good Bill which fills an important gap. It needs to be tightened up and I ask that the Minister be open to this. The Minister of State, Deputy Curran, will admit that when he was taking the Charities Bill 2007 it was strengthened immeasurably during the long debates we had in the House. We can do the same with this Bill. I am not approaching this — nor will anybody else — in a party political way. It is a question of making the legislation work. Senator Feeney, who is sitting opposite, served on a professional board in the past and she may share my view that we need to have some members of the profession on the regulatory body, while ensuring they do not overwhelm it, and that everyone else should be there to perform some function, perhaps because of an ex officio position.

I could go on at some length about the generality of the Bill but we will deal with aspects of it as we go along. I welcome the legislation and will support it in general. However, like Senator Regan, I express the hope that the Minister of State will be open to amendments as we go along.

Business of the Seanad
19/05/09 - This House is under intense scrutiny. ... We need to think strategically about this and deal with the big issues. We should make demands of members of the Government about their commitment to this House and ensure we address the issue of reform. …. The Leader should appreciate that leadership is necessary in the Seanad to bring forward this initiative. There is no place for any type of so-called cute hoorism. We have seen and are seeing across the water that a political majority in a democracy may be swept away in a tide of public contempt or disdain, and we need to look at this. This matter needs to be examined with a certain element of humility and certainly more humility than hubris in terms of defending ourselves. Fair as well as unfair criticism is being made against us. We are in public life and we should be accustomed to that. We can deal with each criticism as it arises but this is not the way to do it.

Back to top of the page



Business of the Seanad
13/05/09 - I was outside those gates at 7.25 a.m. yesterday waiting for them to open and I got home last night at 10 p.m. That is no different from many other people in this House. … To read in this morning’s newspaper complimentary remarks on my game of golf yesterday is absolutely outrageous.

If we have reached a stage where the business of the House takes less precedence than a game of golf, we have lost it. At a time when this House is under closer scrutiny than ever before, this brings it into disrepute. If people want to take a couple of hours off to play golf, I have no problem with that as they work long hours, but my problem is with closing down the business of the House. The statement that we do not sit on Tuesdays in May was apparently attributed to the Leader, but, from my diary, last year I spoke in this House on Tuesday, 13 May, Tuesday, 20 May and Tuesday, 27 May. I am not sure about 6 May, but the idea that we do not sit on Tuesdays in May is another red herring and I do not accept it. It indicates a certain arrogance, disrespect and disregard for the way we do our business. I am embarrassed by it and the Leader should acknowledge that the House has been brought into disrepute in this regard. … I am utterly disappointed at the way this House is being treated. I will not seek to justify it to an audience outside. We owe an apology to the people who elected us whom we represent and I would like a commitment that it will not happen again.

Back to top of the page


Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2009
24/03/09 - Every donation or contribution to a candidate, however large or small or whether given by gift, grant or otherwise, should be recorded in the candidate’s accounts of his or her election. Such accounts should show what moneys were received and from where and on what they were spent. In the previous general election the number of people listed as making donations declined significantly because people made donations below the threshold at which it was necessary to declare. Consequently, these contributions were not declared and we were worse off in terms of transparency than previously.

While I do not have a problem with expenditure limits, they do not appear to be enforceable. Given that they can be circumvented or ignored, it would be much better to spell out clearly in law that every penny received and spent must be accounted for. That is something I have done since 1982, long before any legislation was brought in, because there is nothing to hide.

Another aspect of these limits that bothers me is that it almost appears that people can only support a party or a candidate through some sort of subterfuge. We should have a society where people would be delighted to make a contribution to support their particular party or candidate as their contribution to the exercise of public representation. We have turned all that around. Lists appear in the newspapers that are presented in such a way that if someone makes a donation to a political party or a candidate, it is as if there is dirt attaching to that or that some question must be asked about him or her. It is as if there is some reflection on the person who would do that. I do not like that.

Politics is at a low ebb in society currently. All politicians are low on the levels of trust and confidence. We are barely above bankers, and that is a recent development. We have a responsibility to address that and we should begin at local authority level. I would like to see the Minister of State’s Department running an advertising campaign encouraging people to stand for local authority elections and indicating that we value that contribution and that there is no higher involvement in a democracy than public representation, whether that be at local, national or European level or the President of the country. We must recognise that if somebody puts their name on the ballot paper they give their time to improve their local community, the living standards of local people and whatever else they can do. We have failed to sell that message.

Every time I hear somebody making a general attack on politics I defend the political system. If they attack a particular individual I will make a judgment call on that but if it is a generalised dismissal, contemptuous remark or cynical approach to politicians as a group or class, everybody has a duty in a democracy to question and challenge that, but it is not happening. It is so easy, whether it be in the media, the local pub, the sitting room or whatever, for people to write off many genuine people at local authority level.

Putting all those aspects together it is clear we have a job of work to do to replace trust and confidence in local authorities. They do good work. They should be complimented on it and recognised for it. Their work should be acknowledged and this legislation fails to do that. It is media driven. This did not come in the first place from politicians. It came from the media and I am always concerned about that. It is a populist approach to running in front of the media in the hope of getting it right. I have no particular problem with it but as I said at the outset, limits do not do what they set out to do. Transparency is about keeping a record of everything that is done in the campaign and every cost, and making those available for the world to see without putting limits in front of it. As well as this, given advances in information technology it will not be possible to police this legislation.

Back to top of the page


Seanad Reform
11/03/09 - We have an opportunity to debate the Seanad. We either change it or get rid of it because it cannot continue the way it is currently operating. From a democracy point of view, we have to examine certain aspects of it and get them right. In other words, we either reform or we die, we either change or be abolished, which I believe will happen. The Government believes it controls these matters but it does not.

This House does extraordinarily good work. Major legislation it dealt with in the past year included the Adoption Bill, currently going through the House, the Charities Bill which passed through it House earlier, the Broadcasting Bill, the Civil Liability (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill and the Harbours (Amendment) Bill. Those Bills did not receive the detailed scrutiny and discussion in the Dáil that they received here. That is the strength of this House.

What is required is a threefold approach. First, this is a democracy. The Second House is owned and shared by all the people, therefore, the question of a universal franchise where every citizen of the State would have a vote, a voice and an input into the election and composition of the Seanad is a sine qua non, and that must be delivered on. .. Second, the universities constituency has no place in a democracy as currently structured. It has only a place in a democracy where other members of that democracy, other citizens, also have a vote. … There is nothing wrong with that as long as they do not get something ahead of other citizens of the State.

I am talking about the composition and the election of a Seanad in three main parts, or four allowing for the nominations of the Taoiseach as part one. Part two would comprise local authority members electing … about half of the number they currently elect.

Every citizen of the State would have a vote on a list system such that parties would list the candidates they want to put forward for the Seanad in order of priority and the people would be chosen off the list on the basis of the percentage of the vote they were given by the ordinary people in the list system vote. … this is a huge attraction to Members of this House who have no intention or ambition to go forward for election to the other House.

The way to deal with the universities constituency is to extend the franchise to every third level college, as asked for by the Irish people 30 years ago this year.

I hold in high regard my colleagues who are elected through the indirect system by councillors. I am not demeaning that system in any way, all I am saying is that as it stands it is overwhelming and that is unacceptable. I am talking about more than 20 Members as opposed to more than 40 Members being elected in the indirect system, more than 20 Members being elected by the people by a direct vote, maintaining the six Members on the universities panel except it would be extended to all the colleges, and there would also be Taoiseach’s nominees. Furthermore, the outgoing Cathaoirleach should be returned unopposed. Everything I have said, apart from the numbers which may be slightly different, is part of the recommendations of the Seanad reform group. We should grasp such reform and move forward.

People do not trust or have confidence in this House nor do they have a sense of ownership of it. …. In a time of recession when the other House will be rightly focused on the economy, as it is currently, the work of legislation still has to go on. The nuts and bolts of the political process has to continue and this is the House where that can happen. The idea of bicameral parliament with two chambers is hugely important and it is never more important than in a recession.

This House does very good work. In the main the Members of this House are serious, committed people. They have work to do and are serious about their job. However, having said that even though it can be viable, vital and effective, in terms of how we are elected or selected it is exclusive, undemocratic and unrepresentative.

I went to New Zealand which eliminated its second Chamber and I considered the impact it had on the legislative process. I believe it was a mistake to get rid of it there. I was told that its Parliament could do its work in one Chamber. However, it ended up adding three extra stages to the legislation, including another stage after Second Stage and another stage later on. It got longer and longer, and less efficient. The idea here is that the second House gives a second view and a new perspective and makes it work that way.

The Government amendment is appalling. I got a call this evening from a representative of the University of Limerick, members of whose alumni association were talking with Members of this House and members of the Green Party in recent times and were given a clear commitment that the university franchise would be extended to all the other colleges by the end of this calendar year.

……… It is a major, constitutional, democratic and structural issue. It is to do with participation in democracy and is very much to do with a lack of trust and confidence by ordinary people in the political processes. Let us put trust back into the system. Let us give the people ownership and a say in the election of Members of the Seanad.

In extending the vote universally and in line with the view of the Constitution that the Upper House is different, it would be a good place to experiment and give a first shot to voting rights for 16 year olds or 17 year olds. This is the reduction of the voting age for those who can vote for candidates in the Upper House in the extended panel. We could try that out as there is a view internationally that we should be looking in that direction. The matter is not in the report but we should look at it.

….. We should have these debates and deal with the issues … in terms of internal reform. We can act internally. What are we about? I am about winning back the trust and confidence of people in the political system. I am about diluting the cynicism with which people approach politics today. There is the idea of proposing a sitting outside Dublin. I have suggested the University of Limerick, as it was the first college outside Dublin to be established that would come under this idea. It is a gesture towards contact with the community. Perhaps we are in the hallowed halls but we can do other things at another time.

I will list nine names — Catherine McGuinness, Mary Robinson, John A. Murphy, Professor Jim Dooge, Dr. Maurice Manning, Professor John Kelly, Gordon Wilson, Eamon De Buitléar and John Magnier. These are three groups of three; the last three were nominated by the Taoiseach, the second three were elected by the indirect system and the first three were elected in the university system. This illustrates how good people can come through all the systems. I value all the systems and we should hold on to them, but there is an imbalance.

I was not a Member of this House when the debate on contraception was initiated by Mary Robinson as I was elected after that but I was a Member when we were the first House to consider the issues of AIDS, IVF, chlorofluorocarbons and climate change and stem cell research. We are having energetic debates on that on these benches and I could speak about many more issues.

The value of the House is beyond dispute. I ask people to be brave and confident about this, move it forward and get a result on the issue. We should show Irish people that we are here to serve, contribute and give political scrutiny. We are here in the spirit of the Constitution.

Back to top of the page


Government St. Patrick’s Day Travel
04/03/09- I have not seen the outline of what the Government members intend to do for St. Patrick’s Day, but it is time they stood up and faced down ridiculous and stupid media comment. We need our people abroad. Never was it more necessary to sell Ireland internationally. Never was it more necessary to promote our economy abroad, and if that means going over there and sloshing horrible-tasting green beer, shaking hands with the ancient order of this, that or the other thing or meeting the various brotherhoods then so be it. If that is what it takes to get people to come to this country, invest in this country, buy in this country and have confidence in our economy, the Government would be better off going abroad to wherever the important markets are in a properly organised and effective fashion. I want to see them do that and I will defend it publicly. If it gives cheap headlines to tabloids and irresponsible journalists, so be it. If something needs to be done it should be done.

Back to top of the page


Compelling Attendance at Oireachtas Committees (Anglo Irish Bank)
17/02/09 - In recent days there has been a major debate about the former Anglo Irish Bank chairman, Mr. Seán FitzPatrick, not appearing before the Oireachtas committee. There is a view that the regulation sub-committee of Leinster House should be some sort of star chamber for show trials. When the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997 was going through the House, former Senators Brian Hayes and Derek McDowell and I said we were rushing it through and that it would be full of flaws. Section 12 clearly states, “A statement or admission made ... shall not be admissible as evidence against the person in any criminal proceedings”. If I were in danger of criminal proceedings I would be rushing in here to give evidence so it could not be used as evidence against me in the courts.

What are we doing? Are the people on these committees clear about what they are doing? They are walking into trouble. There must be a clear understanding about these issues. The regulation committee should be doing the tedious, painstaking work of examining auditing and governance structures, auditing stress tests, reporting procedures and responsibilities, and ethics arising from accountancy and auditing. That must be done. I sat on the compellability committee chaired by former Deputy Des O’Malley more than ten years ago and we examined many of these matters at the time. We lost in the Supreme Court on the issue.

We must be absolutely careful how we do this. The Oireachtas is not a court of law. The Constitution clearly separates the roles of politicians and the courts and let us acknowledge that. The committee has work to do. It can certainly investigate what took place in Anglo Irish Bank and the other banks in terms of how this came to be and how the head of treasury and the head of credit had the discretion to move €7 billion without bothering to talk to the chief executive officer, the chairman or the board. Many questions can be asked but the committee cannot delve into the affairs of individuals who might be subject to criminal proceedings down the line. We should be very careful about doing that.

Back to top of the page


Human Rights Issues
04/02/09 - We call on the Government to affirm strongly and publicly its commitment to human rights and to the individual exercise of those rights both domestically and internationally. … My point is that people must retain the objective and the philosophy and then they will deal with the issue.

In the past five years, before the departure to China of every ministerial group, I have written to the Government asking it to raise the questions of Tibet and Chinese human rights. The Government should do this and a balance can be found in this regard. Ireland has gone in one direction only and has not raised the issue of rights with the Chinese Government. .. The International Olympic Committee tried to do so and was given commitments, which were not delivered on. This is the kind of matter about which we must care. Twenty years have passed since I first raised the issue of Tibet in this House and I have raised it consistently ever since.

I recall that after the Good Friday Agreement and the consequential establishment of the Human Rights Commission, we basked in the applause of Europe because as an island we were moving forward to deal with such issues. …. its (HRC) budget has been reduced from €2.3 million to €1.4 million or €1.5 million. I asked them a simple question, namely, how much of that budget was for salaries and how much did the commission have for its work. Its total budget will barely pay the salaries of its employees. Consequently, although it can perform work at that level, it cannot go beyond it, which is highly restrictive.

I chair Co-operation Ireland’s parliamentary group in Leinster House and the matter that concerns its members more than anything else is the lack of depth in community activity and in peace activities. When people are not being killed, the world turns away and thinks all is well but this is far from being the case. I was in company last week, when the Uachtarán travelled to Belfast to visit the peace walls, and three people in that company asked what were peace walls. People do not realise that actual, and not metaphorical walls still are being built in Belfast.

When one considers the weak and the vulnerable in society, what is important is how we give them voice, representation and their rights. All the organisations, authorities and commissions mentioned in the motion tabled by Senator Norris are conduits through which we do so. I view this development with a certain sense of sadness and poignancy. In the early or mid-1970s, I canvassed for the enactment of employment legislation and the Employment Equality Act finally was enacted in 1977. We then celebrated as it was a huge development of great importance. I represented the first teacher to win a case under the equality legislation. Consequently, I have had a long association with this issue and watch it carefully. I admire the work of the Equality Authority. [n]While I know it is an irritant, anything good in a democracy is an irritation.[/n] If it does not irritate or catch one’s heels at some point, it is not doing its job…… I did not agree with all the issues it raised. Nevertheless, I welcomed all the issues it raised. I welcomed them for the discussion they caused, the challenge they created and for the debates Members had on such issues in which they argued among themselves as to whether they were right or wrong. Such creative tension of argumentation advances the political process and is of great importance.

Back to top of the page


Seanad Business - Proposal to Adjourn the House
20/01/09 - There has never been a time during which such cynicism has been directed at the parliamentary and legislative systems. If we meet and immediately adjourn, and afterwards deal with only one item of business, having just come through one of the most turbulent months in our history in terms of the economy and other issues such as child abuse, the Middle East and wars, we will give the impression that we are utterly and completely detached from what is happening.

… rather than adjourn, we could very well use this in-between time to make some points and observations on how matters are proceeding and how we find ourselves. Radio stations and newspapers are now asking ordinary people for their views on the economy, the world, the Irish situation, and how the country should move forward. We are meeting now and we are elected to represent the voices of the people. If we sit down and keep our mouths shut we will not be giving voice to the views of the people we represent. ….. there is a range of subjects we might discuss during this proposed period of adjournment. They include child abuse, cuts in health and education, difficulties in accident and emergency departments, the need for public sector reform and the need for the Government to raise funds internationally.

Back to top of the page


Seanad Business
09/12/08 - The Cathaoirleach will recall that we had a major difference of opinion in the House on Thursday last about the lack of an Order of Business on Friday. I checked with the Leader and he informed me that he is intent on not having an Order of Business again on Friday.

I cannot and will not accept that. The Order of Business is the heart of the day. It is the only time when Members on both sides of the House can put on the record what they feel about the events and topical issues of the day. It is unacceptable. I promise that I will certainly not be co-operating in any way and I will be as disruptive as I possibly and creatively can be to make it impossible to run business during the course of this, and any other, week where this is proposed.

It is outrageous. It is muffling, it is censuring, it is stopping people from articulating their viewpoints. The Order of Business is the most characteristic mark of the Seanad and we owe it to future generations of Senators to protect this invaluable part of the day during which people can go on the record with their views on the events of the day and given there is no other topical hour in the course of the day. I propose an amendment to the Order of Business and I certainly will be bringing that to a vote.

Back to top of the page


Seanad Business
13/11/08 - On the Order of Business yesterday, I referred to the lack of business in the House at present. This was raised by my colleagues and by Senator Fitzgerald on the preceding day. Let us be absolutely clear that I believe the Government is winding down the importance of this House. It is trying to reduce to a minimum the impact of debate in the House and to undermine us in what we are doing.

A classic issue arose yesterday. When we mentioned the lack of legislation in the House, we received a response from the Government side on the important issues that were being debated. That was not the issue at all and we should therefore park that idea. Everybody on this side of the House believes yesterday’s fisheries debate, for example, was very important. However, it seems it requires multitasking on the Government side if its Members must deal with legislation, a motion and a debate in the same week or fortnight. That is the real issue.

We are dealing with the minimum amount of legislation and harmless debates. … We can certainly table motions to deal with these issues, on which the House must divide and in respect of which Members’ votes must match their words. However, the idea of people standing up and saying what they want against Government policy must be considered in light of the fact that, day after day, the greatest critics of Government policy are on the Government side of the House. We need straightness in our debates and need to deal with the matter as we go along.

I agree completely that we need to be relevant. Issues of importance do arise, including the one raised by Senator Fitzgerald and gangland crime. … There are 20 Ministers of State and 15 Cabinet members. Why, therefore, can we not have a debate on the issue raised by Senator Fitzgerald, for example, or that of gangland crime and the legislative changes necessary to address it?

The Leader responded positively yesterday to issues raised by various Senators on this side of the House. Some Members on the Government side, including Senator Ormonde, stated how important it was to keep the issue of gangland crime on the agenda, yet there is no attempt made to deal with it today. There is no attempt to be topical or to respond to what is going on in the world around us. Instead, it has been decided to talk about radon gas. While it is important, it is not as important as any of the other matters we could be discussing today. There is no urgency about the debate on radon gas, as important as it is, bearing in mind that I raised the issue of radon gas many times over the past four or five years and referred to the various parts of the country where it poses a problem. It is not the issue; the issue concerns what we are not talking about.

Back to top of the page



Budget Cuts for IHRC
05/11/08 - One of the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement was the establishment of the Irish Human Rights Commission, which was set up to work closely, which it does, with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. It is a crucial part of what we do and it is very important that it is supported. It is now being told its budget is to be reduced from €2.2 million to €1.6 million. That will not even cover the costs of running the operation. This is an assault on human and civil rights. It is an assault on the Good Friday Agreement and we should take an interest in it. I would like to hear from the appropriate Minister, the Government’s plans in this regard and how it sees the IHRC doing its business on such a restricted budget.

Back to top of the page


Abbey Theatre
26/06/08 - I agree with the viewpoint that the Abbey would be better situated in the centre of Dublin, but I have great sympathy for the viewpoint of the Minister of State and his Department. I happen to know that when a site was selected in Parnell Square not that long ago, it was made impossible for the Department to buy the required site extension. I am fearful of making any move away from what has been decided on the docklands site, although I would have preferred a city centre site.

While previous speakers did not say otherwise, I would like to put firmly on record the fact that the Abbey’s finances have been put in order by the current board. Those finances are substantial and sound, which is an accepted, acknowledged and audited fact. It is also recognised that the theatre is totally dependent on the State and the Arts Council, but its finances are in order.

I agree with him (the Minister of State) on the system of selecting the best design. I am fearful, however, that in the current climate it could prove to be another disaster for the northside, like metro north, if for some reason the Government decided to pull back from this proposal. It is a tribute to the current board that it is now being redesigned with a change in the seat layout so that it is now far more comfortable than it ever was. The lesson to be learned is that, while we made a mistake the last time — to coin a phrase — let us not disgrace ourselves again in this particular case. We should learn from the last time and get it right now. The Minister of State’s job, with responsibility for the arts, will be to fight to protect that part of the Government’s policy and plans for the future.

The reason it can never be a commercial theatre like the Gate is precisely because it is a showcase for new talent, including writing which is hard to get staged. That point inadvertently arose in the last speaker’s contribution. John B. Keane was kept out of the Abbey until he was a major national figure. I discussed this matter with him on many occasions. The fact that he did not get his opportunity in the Abbey during those years was something that hurt him so often and for so long. As a number of speakers have suggested, the Abbey must be the place for new writing. We should support, acknowledge and appreciate what it has to do. While the Abbey Theatre is not there to make money, its finances must be well handled. It must mind the pennies and get value for money; there can be no pulling back from that. If we accept the suggestion of taking a certain amount of new writing talent in the course of a year, we must be able to pay the price for that because not all those plays will be successful. We must deal with the fact that some of them may play to empty houses.

Back to top of the page


Ministers’ Travel for St. Patrick’s Day
12/03/08 - In terms of the cost of travel, there were two items on “RTE News” this morning. One was the cost of sending Ministers abroad and the exorbitant cost of hiring a full aeroplane and canvassing all over Europe to send a few asylum seekers back to Africa. The latter cost double the price of sending the Ministers abroad. RTE should get its act together on the relative importance of issues, if it believes the second item on the news should be about Ministers going abroad for St. Patrick’s Day. I am a disinterested party in this. I would not want to waste my St. Patrick’s Day by watching a parade in a distant city and drinking green beer afterwards with the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick, or whatever. I am grateful to those Ministers who give their time to doing that. It is crucially important work that goes with the ministerial portfolio. It is important culturally and in terms of diplomacy, business, the national profile, tourism development and connecting to our diaspora, including emigrant groups, around the world. This work should and must be done by Ministers and I offer them my full support. RTE should consider this and ask whether the money is well spent — I certainly believe it is.

Back to top of the page


Literature
06/12/07 - Members of both Houses received by post recently a book called Best of Irish Poetry 2007, from the Munster Literature Centre. I draw Members’ attention to that because accompanying it was the startling information that literature is the only aspect of the arts which does not have a permanent home in Dublin city. There is one in Cork, in fairness to Cork County Council or Cork City Council, whichever it is, but whereas the visual arts have theatres, galleries, houses, etc., there is no permanently owned, rent-free or secure home for places such as the Irish Writers Centre or the Dublin Writers Museum. We should ask the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism to discuss that issue with us to allow us plead a case in that regard. It is an issue we should raise.

Back to top of the page


Public Servants and Oireachtas Members
04/12/07 - I am rarely stuck for words in this House but Senator Jim Walsh, on the Government benches, last week demonised public servants, including teachers, nurses, gardaí, civil servants and a range of others, with disparaging comments. It struck me as incredible that a Member of this House could speak of modernisation and progression while representing a party that has, for 30 years, refused to allow this House modernise and change to meet the will of the people. The Senator made comments on prison officers but, while we might have personal opinions of them, there was outrage some years ago when a Minister for the public service suggested politicians should check in every morning. He was blown out of the water because we would not do such a thing. The same goes for matters relating to information technology, IT, and modernisation; every primary school and every office of the public service uses IT. Should we keep it a secret that 50% of Members of the Oireachtas cannot send and receive e-mails? People in this House who make comments such as those made by Senator Walsh last week should check they are not throwing stones inside a glasshouse. I would be happy to have a debate on this. Senator Walsh can bring a supporting Minister with him and I will stand toe to toe with both. For every problem they find in the public service I will find one in this House and I guarantee I will be the last man standing.

Back to top of the page



Seanad Reform
28/11/07 - I am firmly committed to an upper house. At present the Seanad is unrepresentative, undemocratic, anachronistic and unfair in the way it is put together. The point raised by Senator Alex White is right in that a university electorate is elitist, a cadre, exclusive and unacceptable in a democracy. However, it is not the only thing which is unacceptable. The only reason I am on the university panel is that I would not have got a vote on the cultural and educational panel despite the fact I was the boss of the largest, oldest and most widespread educational organisation in the country, nor would I have got a vote on the labour panel despite the fact I was president of the largest labour organisation on this island. The only way I could have a voice in the second House of Parliament was to be on the university panel. That is why it needs reform.

If we worked on the basis of one person, one vote I would not have a difficulty with maintaining the university panel. My view since I became a Member — I have been on every reform group for 20 years — is that if it comes down to that, farmers and fishermen should vote for those on the agricultural panel, education partners should vote for those on the cultural and educational panel, registered members of trade unions should vote for those on to the labour panel and business people should vote for those on the administrative panel. The nominating bodies should have votes. It is disgraceful that they have no impact beyond nominating people. These are some of the gaps in the system. In such a structure, there would be a strong case for maintaining the university panel.

I have no problem with the concept of indirect elections, which works in France, the USA and in many countries. It is a distillation of democracy in that one layer elects the other. The only problem I have with it at present is that the preponderance of people elected that way is unacceptable. My view is that the Seanad should become slightly larger and that the number of Members should be increased to approximately 70 and that the number elected indirectly would not be reduced to 20 but should be perhaps 30. The idea of a national list, a national panel, to elect people indirectly makes much more sense than this nonsense of knowledge and experience of education, etc.

We need to make changes and implement the proposals. There is a roadmap for implementation and milestones and targets are included in the report. If we do not agree to the amendment, I will co-operate with the Government motion. The business could be done in two months and we could move forward. Let us make people put up or shut up. We must be conscious of people who have been elected by county councillors. People should be given time to adjust and make changes to what is proposed.

Back to top of the page


Taoiseach's Salary Increase
20/11/07 - I raised last week the importance of having a debate on the report of the review body on higher remuneration. I raised that in the context of where stands accountability and responsibility. I have listened carefully to the Taoiseach getting it wrong every time he stands up. I support the decision of the review body in the case of the Taoiseach’s salary. I think I am the only person in either House who does, or certainly who has said so. I do not have any difficulty with it, but I have a real difficulty with the way he is handling it.

From a constitutional perspective, the only place to consider the Taoiseach’s position is in the context of the separation of the Legislature and the Executive. We have guarded that every step of the way since the foundation of the State and everybody agrees with it. The point is that since the foundation of the State in 1922, the head of the Judiciary, the Chief Justice, has been paid exactly the same as the Taoiseach. It is worthwhile for people to note that before we get into the debate because if one cannot find an external comparator and we do not agree with any of the private sector comparators, that is the one to which we should refer. While one might not have read it in any newspaper, the salary increase the Chief Justice got, to which he was entitled and earned, was exactly the same as that which the Taoiseach got. The Chief Justice is paid, to the penny, the same as the Taoiseach.

I want a debate here because I want to hear the different points of view. I am not here to defend the Taoiseach, but I am defending the system under which we took responsibility for this out of the hands of politicians and set up a review body, the members of which do a thankless job and in the main do not even draw a salary for it.

Back to top of the page


Taoiseach's Salary Increase
07/11/07 - I call for a debate on the report of the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector. The body produced an excellent report, works for little pay and examines something that must be addressed. It exists because people would not trust politicians to do its work. The Taoiseach was 100% correct to accept his pay increase. He would have been a laughing stock in the country’s pubs and elsewhere had he turned it down.

What should the Taoiseach be paid? I am regularly involved in negotiations. The body looked after our salaries five years and ten years ago. The Taoiseach is paid less than one tenth of the amount paid to someone running a bank, one half of the amount paid to a consultant and somewhat less than the only published figure for an amount paid to a daily newspaper editor.

I have examined the matter and there is no fair international comparison. Has anyone examined how much Members of other Parliaments receive in expenses? Peter Robinson and Gerry Adams, Westminster MPs, claimed expenses of nearly €250,000 each last year. We should compare like with like, read the information and discuss the issues. If we do not like who is the Taoiseach, we should get rid of him or her, which is a different ball game.

Back to top of the page


Seanad Reform
13/09/07 - There are eight different reports on Seanad reform. In my time as a Member of the House, I have worked on and been a signatory to at least four of them. I was also, on behalf of our group, a member of the committee that worked on the issue in the previous Dáil and Seanad.

The Members of this House are effective and hard-working; that is not the issue. The method of election, however, is undemocratic, unrepresentative, elitist and has no place in a modern democracy. It is no reflection on the elected Members because we must work the current system. However, it is in our hands to change it. We can no longer live with an anachronistic system, and that includes the university seats.

We do not want is the soft option of changing the university representation and making no other changes, which I know those on the Government benches would do in the morning. We need to be creative in making changes which do not reduce the representation produced by the distilled form of democracy whereby the people elected to local government elect another tier. There is nothing wrong with that, it is acceptable and the Seanad report recognises that. If the outcome is to continue to elect the same number through that process, that is fine, but it should not be the same percentage. That would not be correct. In a modern democracy, we must ensure there is as near as possible universal franchise in the election of a House of Parliament. It is not acceptable that election to the Seanad continues in the current way. It is an embarrassment in a modern democracy and is unacceptable to that extent.

Back to top of the page


Seanad Reform
03/07/07 - I wish to state, now that we are in the middle of this embarrassing, unrepresentative, undemocratic, anachronistic, elitist Seanad election process that we do not want any more committees, any more reports, any more discussions. Let us grasp the nettle and put into play change. I would like the new Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, who has strong views on this matter, to be invited to the Seanad to give an outline of how he intends to implement the recommendations of the Seanad Reform report to give every citizen a say in the election of the second House of Parliament. Is náireach an rud é go bhfuil próiséas den sórt sin againn faoi láthair. Everywhere I go I hear nothing but complaints about the current process. It is an embarrassment and it is time to change it.

Back to top of the page


Seanad Éireann
01/05/07 - The Seanad has been extraordinarily enriched by the contributions of people who were defeated in standing for election to the other House. All I ask is that Members coming into the Seanad make the contribution they can make. ….. In the case of this particular Seanad, my greatest regret is that once again we have failed to achieve reform of the House as we set out to do. I am potentially one of the greatest losers, since no primary teachers who graduated since 1995 can vote for me. This is a matter of great personal interest, I can assure the House. Even if I were never to profit from reform of the House, it is something of a failure that we have not managed to do it.

Looking back on this Seanad, it will be seen to have been an influential period and a Seanad that has been increasingly relevant, with more legislation initiated perhaps than in any of its predecessors since the foundation of the State. It is worth noting that particular Ministers have chosen to initiate legislation in this House. The contributions by spokespersons on all sides have been very important and I want to recognise that. … In terms of the relevance of the House, from the perspective outside Leinster House, this has been strengthened.

Back to top of the page




Petitions Committee
04/10/06 - The concept of a petitions system is important because it involves the engagement between people and parliament. I was a member of the Sub-Committee on Seanad Reform with Senators O’Rourke, Brian Hayes, Dardis and Ryan. It was on this committee that this issue was first raised. When considering Seanad reform, I examined the process in other Parliaments. I was interested in the New Zealand model because it moved from a bicameral to a unicameral system. As it was a Westminster, Anglophone style Parliament, I was curious how it managed this change. In its Bills procedure, it had a five Stages system similar to our own. When it moved over to a unicameral system, extra Stages were simply added. In effect, there were three different forms of Second Stage. The last form of Second Stage allowed for amendments made by a special committee to examine that Stage. This part of the Stage required the New Zealand Parliament to invite civic groups to make representations on the legislation.

Such a system can work well, even in a country like New Zealand which presents geographical difficulties, being a long, narrow country. The parliamentarians employed various strategies. If they believed a group had genuine locus standi and relevant insight on a particular issue, they would pay its expenses to come to Wellington and make a presentation. At other times, the special Second Stage committee went out to meet people in their localities. This worked well and it is something I recommend in our case.

We should also look to some of the existing Oireachtas committees. I made a propsal to the Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs that it should visit Gaeltacht areas to listen to and talk with people there, but it could not find its way to do this. The Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business, on the other hand, is already engaged in such activity.

These meetings are attended by a wide range of people, from business, labour, chamber of commerce and educational backgrounds. In addition, the committee always invites local post-primary school pupils to make a brief presentation. I believed this element to be ground breaking.
Although it is cumbersome, I have seen how well the consultative process works in the New Zealand Parliament. At a time when there is such a lack of respect for the political world, we must encourage people to engage in the work we do and we must be seen to be listening and taking on board their views. People understand when they cannot get their way and when others disagree with them. Allowing interested persons to engage in such a consultative process is akin to giving them a day in court. People want to make their case, engage in argumentation and discussions, and listen to and make proposals. Such a process can be only valuable.

Back to top of the page


Taoiseach’s €50,000 “Loan”
27/09/07 - The issue being discussed in the media and elsewhere today is one where we are inclined to rush to judgment while we all seek further information. We have tried to deal with this situation over the past ten years on a legislative basis. There is legislation in place to deal with tax law and ethics which is difficult legislation with which to deal.

I will suspend judgment until such time as I get a clear indication on the question of Revenue law and ethics legislation. I would like to hear from the Revenue Commissioners and the ethics commission. Once these matters have been clarified we will know where we stand. If the bar of what is politically correct needs to be raised, as regards the conduct of taoisigh or Ministers, we will have to address that matter also. There has been much discussion but the fundamental facts boil down to whether the law of the land has been broken. If so, that brings us to a clear conclusion. If it has not been broken — and I do not know whether it has or not — then we must park the issue. That is the way to proceed.

Back to top of the page


Bureau of Military History
17/05/06 - The Minister for Defence made a proposal to the Government, which was accepted, to increase the pensions of survivors of the 1916 Rising and nobody would have a problem with that but would welcome it. To reiterate a point I made here some months ago, with the increased interest around the 90th anniversary of the Rising, many people are trying to do research into that area. Most of the information is available from the Bureau of Military History, which is unable to deal with the demand. I have spoken to the staff there. There are fewer than 20 chairs and there is a two month wait to get a space for a number of hours in a day. The staff is superb and enthusiastic about the work and has had assurances from everybody right up to the Taoiseach. It would be useful for the Minister for Defence to come here and tell us the plans he has to give public access to the records available in the Bureau of Military History, including statements taken in the 1940s and 1950s from survivors of those times, which give vital information on local and national history. It is the least he could do and would be more useful and helpful than some of the commemorative events.

Back to top of the page


Máire Buckley
09/05/06 - It is appropriate for the House to note the extraordinary and unfortunate death of Ms Máire Buckley, who contributed so much to Dublin’s inner city educational development and battling the effects of social exclusion and underprivilege. Over the weekend, she was unfortunately killed by that tearaway bus. The House has often debated the need to recognise the work of those involved in inner city schools, hospitals and other social services. It is great, even under these unfortunate and extraordinary circumstances, that Máire Buckley’s contribution is well recognised. She worked tirelessly in the area over the years. Anyone involved in education, politics or community work in Dublin inner city could not but know her. The circumstances of her death raise one’s anger and hackles but that is for another day.

Back to top of the page



1916 Rising Commemoration
26/04/06 - I wish to refer to the Easter Sunday commemoration. For the first time ever, Sinn Féin was on the reviewing platform outside the GPO on Easter Sunday acknowledging the members of the Irish Army marching down O’Connell Street, wearing their cap and lapel badges, as Óglaigh na hÉireann. It is the first time since 1926 that Sinn Féin acknowledged Óglaigh na hÉireann as being the Irish Army. That is the truly significant issue.

I also agree that the second parade of balaclavas, black berets and so forth looked tired and very yesterday, as it were, and that is how it should be seen. That day has passed and we have moved on. I welcome the fact that Sinn Féin acknowledged Óglaigh na hÉireann on O’Connell Street on Easter Sunday as the true and absolute successors of the patriots of 1916. I speak as somebody who also wanted the parade to involve more than the Army.

Back to top of the page


Shot at Dawn Campaign
28/03/06 - It is important for the sake of the memory of these soldiers that we recognise what they went through. We are learning much about our past. Many people who lost family members this way have been forgotten. They have had to live with memories. Many families often had to cover it up. They were afraid to explain what had happened as it was a matter of shame, despite the fact these soldiers had done no wrong. They were not guilty of any crime and tried in the absence of due process without a prisoner’s friend or military lawyer to put forward their cases.

Last night when I watched the woman speaking of her father on the BBC, it hit me how close historically it was to us. She was speaking about her mother living into her 90s, fighting her husband’s case that he was never a coward or a traitor. People were ordered at gunpoint out of the trenches to run without bullet-proof vests into machine gun fire. If there were people to be dragged before the courts, it was certainly not the victims.

A space must be found at one of our war memorials to give recognition to those shot at dawn. It was not just those from the British army who were written out of the history of the time but also RIC personnel. Those soldiers in the Great War did their best. Many were there as an escape from hunger at home or they were urged to enlist by John Redmond. They did what they thought was right. To call them cowards or traitors utterly wrongs their memories. To their families and their descendants we must reach out with a memorial to them. Under the authority of the Westminster Acts, do we have the power to pass legislation to grant pardons to these soldiers?

Back to top of the page


E-Government
23/02/06 - Members may not have noticed that the final item on today’s Order Paper is a proposal for a Council regulation to encourage silkworm rearing, together with an explanatory note. I draw attention to this nugget for the following reason. The Whips of each House have been asked to consider how e-Government might work at parliamentary and Chamber level. I do not know if Members have recently tried to get access to the papers listed daily on the Order Paper. Whereas older statutory papers are easily found, usually on the Attorney General’s website, it is difficult to get access to the current papers, which are placed in the Oireachtas Library in hard copy. It is an example of information that could be available electronically for Members to access.

Back to top of the page


1916 Rising Commemoration
15/02/06 - I support the idea of using the 90th anniversary of the Easter Rising in 1916 to discuss important issues but wonder what the Government plans as a commemoration on the day. The Army is entitled to be involved in the commemoration. Whatever we do after 90 years, however, should reflect what has happened in Ireland during that time, and the Ireland of today. It should not be confined to a military demonstration or march. That is precisely what would detract from a good idea because the event has a wider significance. The commemoration should be open and reflect modern Ireland.

Back to top of the page


1916 Rising
02/02/06 - As this year is the 90th anniversary of the 1916 Rising, it is worth discussing it. The year 1916 was a time of extraordinary change but there has been no acknowledgement of it. People are afraid of their past in that regard. There were decent people in the Royal Irish Constabulary as well as in the various volunteer forces. There was Tom Kettle as well as Tom Clark. Some people gave much to make this country what it is. It is only in recent years that I have read the statements taken by the State in 1946 from people who lived through that period. Those statements were taken in confidence and were locked away in the military history archives in Beggars Bush. When one reads them, one sees it was about ordinary people.

This is the year in which we should grow up, acknowledge our past and welcome the Queen of a neighbouring country. We should be grown up and developed enough to do that without trying to justify physical force or argue about who are the true successors of 1916. That is irrelevant. The successors of 1916 are all the people.

We have all come from a generation where Irish history at school finished in 1916. It is time we acknowledged it happened and its rights and wrongs. People were in favour of it while others were opposed. That is what people want to say. For me, however, it is not about that but about reading the fourth paragraph of the proclamation and the vision therein and about seeing if we have reached it yet and where we go from here. It is not about the rights and wrongs. It would be completely wrong to try to apply the views of today to that time. We should openly discuss 1916.



Back to top of the page

Seanad debates are available in full on the Oireachtas Website