We use Google Analytics to see which pages are read and how the site is used, so we know what to improve. This only runs if you accept. See our privacy notice for details.

Seanad
‹ Order of Business

Standing Order 41

Summary

Senator Norris argued for removing Standing Order 41 so Senators can table amendments with a charge on the Exchequer. The Chair noted the matter was before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and Norris then also condemned the ECHR decision on the hooded men.

David P.B. Norris Senator David Norris Independent

To complete the trio of Trinity Senators, I spoke on the dining hall steps on behalf of students.

I have sent in a motion to remove Standing Order 41 which prohibits Seanad Éireann from putting down amendments which create a charge on the Exchequer. Within ten minutes I had 12 signatures. People from every single party in the House consistently complain about this issue.

A lot of people thought it was in the Constitution; it is not. It is in our Standing Orders. We have the right and the power to remove Standing Order 41, and-----

Comment on this
Denis O'Donovan An Cathaoirleach Fianna Fáil

I do not wish to interrupt the Senator but this matter is on the agenda of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for this evening.

Comment on this
David P.B. Norris Senator David Norris Independent

Very good.

Comment on this
Denis O'Donovan An Cathaoirleach Fianna Fáil

I am not saying that guarantees anything but perhaps the Senator will wish to reflect on the outcome of the committee's deliberations.

Comment on this
David P.B. Norris Senator David Norris Independent

That is splendid. I thank the Cathaoirleach very much for that information. If this is a decision for the Committee for Procedure and Privileges then we will have time to discuss this matter. I hope it will be a positive decision, otherwise there will be no excuse for anybody to complain about it.

I also wish to raise the decision of the European Court of Human Rights that what happened to the hooded men was not torture. Of course it was torture. A blind bat could see that it was torture. This is extremely important. I do not refer to historical importance pertaining to the people involved in the case. This is used as a precedent by other countries, including the United States of America, to justify extraordinary rendition and torture, including waterboarding. This is where it leads. We have to stand up. The European Court of Human Rights is a creaky old body, and it does not like reopening cases. It has to be pressurised into doing this and I urgently ask that the Minister appeals this matter. It is essential that Ireland appeals this matter to the Grand Chamber. We cannot permit torture, which this plainly was. The European Court of Human Rights got it wrong. It was reluctant to reopen this case. It must do so in the name of humanity.

Comment on this