Order of Business - 4th December 2008

Order of Business - 4th December 2008
Senator David Norris: I also feel very strongly about this point and I mentioned it to Senator O'Toole who indicated to me that he intended to take it up. He has quoted from the relevant section of Standing Orders. I have been a Member of this House for 21 years and I have never experienced this before. It is an extraordinary departure not just from the rule book of the House but from the traditions of the House. At the very least, we are entitled to an explanation of this matter from the Leader because it is a very serious matter.
If a vote is called on the Order of Business, on what will we be voting? Will we be voting on the Order of Business for today or agreeing the business for tomorrow? Where will it end? Will we start to have the business for the whole of next week as well? This is a very big mistake and I cannot understand why the Order of Business should be foreclosed in this manner.

Senator Maurice Cummins: I agree with Senators O'Toole and Norris. Standing Orders make it abundantly clear that the Leader must order the business of the day on that particular day. Under Standing Order 16, we will have to have an Order of Business tomorrow.
Senator Eugene Regan: We had a situation last week relating to specific items concerning EU legislation which were taken with and without debate. Confusion arose as to what was agreed, as if what was suggested was determinative of the Order of Business on the subsequent Thursday. The Leader must be more clear on what exactly is being agreed. In my understanding, we are agreeing the Order of Business of today per the rules. Senator O'Toole is right.
Senator Alex White: I agree with that.
An Cathaoirleach: There is precedent for putting down a motion stating, "notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders".
Senator Joe O'Toole: A Chathaoirligh, I listened to the Leader very carefully and he did not say "notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders". There is a precedent in that there was a day when this was done before, but the precedent was never challenged and I am challenging the procedure now. It was incorrect the last time and it is incorrect this time. The Leader has put the Cathaoirleach in an awkward position. This is one step away from coming in on Tuesday and ordering the business for the week with no further Order of Business. This was never contemplated by Standing Orders. It goes against the finest traditions of the House. I ask the Leader to respect the traditions of the House and demur from his proposal to deal with tomorrow's business.
An Cathaoirleach: The Leader should bring a substantive motion to the House as part of today's Order of Business.
Senator David Norris: I think that would be wrong. There may have been a precedent but I do not recall it even though I have been here for nearly every day's Order of Business for the past 21 years. I am sure you, a Chathaoirligh, have been correctly advised on that so I am not impugning that advice, but there is no reason to follow a bad precedent. What is this attempt to close down the Order of Business? There is resistance from the Leader-----
Senator Donie Cassidy: That is not so.
Senator David Norris: Yes, there is resistance from him to the expansion of the Order of Business and I have never fully understood that.
Senator Donie Cassidy: On a point of order. I do not interrupt anyone and this is my first time to do so. I discussed this with the leaders' group last Tuesday. I have open consultation with them every week on all the business of the House and no one told me they would have a difficulty with this.
Senator Joe O'Toole: I ask the Leader to withdraw that immediately.
Senator Donie Cassidy: Senator O'Toole informed me he objected in the strongest possible terms. First, this is the norm in the Dáil. Second, it has been done before in the Twenty-third Seanad. The House will sit for the next three Fridays and it is an effort to start business with the Minister of the day. There are three other days' sittings when we will take Adjournment Matters and other matters of importance.
If an urgent matter arises between Thursday morning and Friday morning, as the leaders know, I would not be reluctant to allocate time to have it brought to the attention of the House, under the stewardship of the Cathaoirleach. Tomorrow there will be an all-day debate on the economy, which every Member has requested. As we all know, it is a serious challenge to the whole nation and to the Government. On one of the other Friday sittings we will deal with Second Stage of the Finance Bill, a huge Bill that will come before the House for consideration. On the other Friday, two Bills will be brought before the House. If there were only one other sitting day during the week, I would accept that is unreasonable, but I do not believe it is unreasonable when there are three other sitting days that allow for nine Adjournment Matters to be raised in total over the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
I arranged business in this way so that we would all get out of here by 4 o'clock or 5 o'clock on Friday evening. Some colleagues have to go home to Waterford, Kerry and Donegal and, if possible, it would get them home by midnight. That is the spirt in which I am doing this. To have the Minister for Finance present in the Chamber for two out of those three Friday sittings is of the utmost importance.

If the Committee on Procedure and Privileges does not have to meet, I will put the correct wording to the House 30 minutes after the Order of Business. Colleagues at the group meeting knew that this was what I was proposing to do this week.
Senator Joe O'Toole: And we objected.
An Cathaoirleach: I will suspend the sitting for ten minutes and ask the party leaders and Whips to meet. If necessary, we will bring a substantive motion to the House to announce tomorrow's business today.
Senator Donie Cassidy: If I include the word "notwithstanding", will that cover us this morning?
An Cathaoirleach: No, we must introduce a motion to announce tomorrow's business.
Senator David Norris: As the Leader indicated, he interrupted me; therefore, I am entitled to finish. He does not usually do so; he is courteous. At least, we managed to squeeze out a reason. We understand the Minister for Finance is under considerable pressure and has great demands on his time but Ministers are servants of the House, not masters, whatever the circumstances.
What worries me more is the constant pressure exerted on the Order of Business. We are told about time considerations but we started nearly ten minutes late, according to the clock in the Chamber; therefore, it cannot be a matter of time on a day such as this. We should be very careful before we close this important aspect of our business, when significant matters are raised in the House. I have always felt passionately about the Order of Business and have sought and obtained extensions to it. Members of the Leader's party think it is important but it has been opposed at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and I understand the opposition has come from the Leader. We should not close the most significant element of our business.
Senator Donie Cassidy: On a point of information, we extended the time allowed for the Order of Business.
Senator David Norris: After the exertion of much pressure.
An Cathaoirleach: My decision is that we will suspend the sitting until 11.05 a.m. The party leaders and Whips will meet until then.

Senator David Norris: I ask the Leader for clarification on an issue. I did not hear him mention a sos during the debate on the Charities Bill.
Senator Donie Cassidy: There will not be a sos.
Senator David Norris: That is very unfair. A small number of us will be here working throughout the day on this Bill and, by and large, they are the same people who put a great deal of effort into this area. I have invited in a group of people for lunch. I am not making the point that I am entitled to eat. I will happily work through any hours but I do not like to be discourteous to people I have invited here on the assumption that we would follow the usual tradition. I do not understand this niggardliness with regard to the way in which we are treated. I appeal to the Leader to provide for a sos during this debate because we all put in the work and we are entitled to be treated with the minimum of respect.
I want to raise another issue, which is serious. It is a matter I have down on the Order Paper and concerns the case of Pamela Izevbekhai, the Nigerian woman who is currently under threat.

I asked the Leader last week if he would be prepared to make time for this resolution to be passed. It states that Members of the House did not envisage this kind of action when they passed the relevant legislation. I know that many Members on the Government side feel exactly the same and feel as strongly as I do about this.
I met Pamela Izevbekhai yesterday. She is under very considerable nervous strain. She is scheduled to be deported on 10 December. What an extraordinary way for us to celebrate Christmas, namely, by issuing an order for her deportation back to a country where the lives of herself and her children are very clearly in danger.
I am extremely disturbed by another aspect of this matter. Last week I received a very nasty and racist anonymous letter enclosing an article from one of the Murdoch-owned newspapers. Both the letter writer and the article suggested that her claim for asylum was fraudulent on a number of bases, including the allegation that she had lived in the United Kingdom for two and a half years. This is completely untrue. I have seen affidavits and proofs, including affidavits from her employers, her parish priest and the kindergarten which her children attended, that she was in Nigeria during that time.
I am a member of the National Union of Journalists and, having spoken to some journalistic colleagues, I understand that a journalist was apparently contacted by "a source in immigration", who made these inaccurate statements available to the journalist. It was not the journalist who contacted the source. I would like this matter to be inquired into. Is it appropriate that sources within immigration, paid officials of this State, should leak false allegations to the newspapers during a period when apparently this House cannot discuss it because we are told it is at the European Court of Human Rights for a determination of process?
An Cathaoirleach: The point is made.
Senator David Norris: No, it is not made. This woman's child has died - it bled to death.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should-----
Senator David Norris: I want to finish this because I must put it on the record. Even if it means that you have to expel me, I will do it.
An Cathaoirleach: I do not want to expel the Senator.
Senator David Norris: I have a statement from a senior Nigerian politician who says that if this woman goes back, there is a very strong likelihood that her influential family will have her kidnapped at the airport and she will not be seen again.
An Cathaoirleach: That is a matter for the Adjournment, when the Senator would get an explanation from the Department, if he wished to do that.
Senator David Norris: I do not think I will. I want an explanation now and I want the Leader to take up this matter, particularly the question of the leak.
I also put on the record that the United Nations Development Fund for Women doubted if ordinary police would take action against family members who are trying to force a woman to undergo female genital mutilation. There is no federal law, there is some local law, against it but no one has ever been charged or arrested for this. We are relying on verbal assurances from the Nigerian Embassy. This is exactly what we did with regard to Shannon. I heard a most disgraceful intervention by somebody from the Nigerian Embassy who compared Pamela Izevbekhai's inability to defend her child, who then died despite her best efforts, to child abuse and paedophilia. That was most disgraceful. This woman requires to be protected.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has the point well made. We are on the Order of Business.
Senator David Norris: It is a clear case of violation of human rights and it is being stood over by the institutions of this State. I at least want to protest and there are decent people on the Government side who want to do the same.

Senator David Norris: Will the Leader answer my question please?
Senator Donie Cassidy: What was that?
Senator David Norris: Will he raise the issue of the apparent leak with the Minister?
Senator Donie Cassidy: Yes, I will. My apologies but I forgot that point. I will convey it in the strongest terms possible to the Minister's office immediately after the Order of Business. It is a serious matter that has been brought to the attention of the House by Senator Norris, who outlined his views with considerable knowledge.