Tag Archives: Senate

Yesterday.

Seanad Eireann, Dublin.

Independent Sharon Keogan addressed Minister for Health Stephen Donnely on the extension of covid powers under the Health and Criminal Justice (Covid-19) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2021.

Senator Keogan said:

“You would have to laugh, if it were not so serious, at the phrase “extraordinary time-limited measures” contained in this Bill’s explanatory memorandum. As each Bill was passed, that “time-limited nature” was stressed so heavily and yet each sunset clause extension was used in its entirety – every single one, for the full amount.

“When we were debating those, the Minister, Deputy Stephen Donnelly, stressed that this was the end of it, and once those dates came and went, new legislation would have to be drawn up. New legislation being drawn up would give the Houses a chance to go through the detail of each Bill and afford the Bills the scrutiny that they are supposed to receive in these Houses.

“Of course, that would be inconvenient to the Government so someone came up with this new brainwave. To be honest, I was shocked that this was allowed after all the posturing on how extraordinary these measures are, and as for the time limits, you can literally scribble out the end dates and pencil in any other date you want.

“It displays the most cynical and underhanded attitude towards this House that I have ever seen in my time here. It undermines the integrity of the law, of the processes and operation of the Oireachtas, and betrays what little of the public trust that is left.

Let us be honest here. We are not voting for the continuation of emergency powers until the end of March. We are extending them until the end of June. That means that, at the drop of a hat, when someone in Timbuktu discovers the Sigma variant, NPHET and the Cabinet can, if they feel like it, introduce a full level 5 lockdown without consulting anyone in the Dáil or Seanad…”


Senator Jerry Buttimer
rising, interjected:

“Does the Senator really believe that? Incredible.”

Acting Chairperson (Senator Pauline O’Reilly) said:

“Senator Buttimer, please take your seat.”

Senator Keogan continued:

“Of course, once July arrives the legislation will lapse and we will be free from restrictions – wink wink, nudge nudge. I hope the Minister realises there is no coming back from this. After this, no one will take a sunset clause seriously again; no one in this room or outside it.

Once you throw this integral element of legislation under the bus, there is no pulling it back. Future Dáileanna and Seanaid and future generations, when presented with time-sensitive legislation by the government of their day, will be able to point to the Minister for Health, Deputy Donnelly, and the Cabinet of Micheál Martin and say that sunset clauses are not worth the paper they are written on.”

Earlier: Take Their PUPS

000885bf-531

Screen Shot 2016-07-20 at 12.18.25tom hunerson

From top: IBRC logo; Senator Michael McDowell; Tom Hunerson

Yesterday.

In the Seanad.

Senators discussed the Commission of Investigation (Irish Bank Resolution Corporation) Bill 2016 which is at its second stage.

This is the Cregan commission which is examining sales of assets by State-owned IBRC, including the sale of Siteserv to Denis O’Brien €45.4million, while Siteserv owed Anglo €150million.

During the Seanad discussion, Senator Michael McDowell said the following:

As Senator Diarmuid Wilson stated, this commission of investigation arises mainly out of the Siteserv controversy. It is notable that on 25 April 2015, the former chairman of IBRC [Alan Dukes] stated that the board had rejected a Department of Finance proposal to appoint a senior civil servant to the board on the basis that such an appointment would be unsuitable.

In the same article in The Irish Times, he stated a Mr Woodhouse had been kept out of discussions regarding Siteserv because he personally handled Mr Denis O’Brien’s relationship with IBRC. He stated a different executive in IBRC, Mr Tom Hunersen, had handled the Siteserv transaction.

This is worrying because, three years earlier, a posting (in comments) appeared on the broadsheet.ie website suggesting Mr Aynsley, Mr Hunersen and Mr O’Brien were socialising together at the time when the transaction in case was taking place.

It is also worrying that Mr O’Brien was reported in 2014 by The Irish Times as having made a major investment in a Massachusetts-based IT firm in which Mr Hunersen was one of the moving parties. The former chairman of the IBRC claimed Mr Woodhouse had stepped aside from this transaction.

He seems to have re-emerged recently in the context of the story in The Irish Times that many Members of this House read last week. Again, the question arises as to whether there is a connection between him and Mr O’Brien.

A more fundamental question arises as to who is organising the campaign of intelligence-gathering of Mr [Mark[ Hollingsworth, the so-called journalist engaged in coming to Members of this House, among others, and passing himself off as one seeking to identify the source of leaks about Mr O’Brien’s dealings with IBRC. These are very serious issues.

This matter is particularly relevant because, according to the story in The Irish Times, a major British security firm was the recipient of the material collected by Mr. Hollingsworth in Dublin.

We heard later, according to evidence given in the High Court, that a USB key appeared on the desk of Mr O’Brien and that he, for the first time, discovered the material that Mr Hollingsworth was privy to in Dublin.

The use of an English security firm in this respect is not a new phenomenon in Ireland. We should remember also that there was elaborate industrial espionage and surveillance in the context of the takeover of the Independent News & Media group at the time between the O’Reilly interests and the O’Brien interests, if I may use that term.

In that case, newspaper reports indicated that 11 operatives operating from a Dublin hotel were engaged in fairly extensive surveillance of the then managing director of Independent News & Media and that it was eventually determined that an English espionage firm or intelligence-gathering firm called Esoteric lay behind that.

Surprisingly, Independent News & Media, which later came under the control of Mr O’Brien, largely speaking, has been unable to work out who commissioned that investigation.

I am also worried in another respect. It was reported in the media that Irish Water had concluded an extensive contract with a company in the Isle of Man [Another 9 or A9 Business Recovery Services] chaired by Mr Leslie Buckley and, in which, Mr Denis O’Brien was a large investor. He is described in its publicity material as a leading Irish entrepreneur.

The function of that company is to advise Irish Water against the hacking of its sites. It appears the main business of this company in the Isle of Man, which is owned by Mr O’Brien and chaired by Mr Buckley, an associate of Mr. O’Brien, concerns computer security and countermeasures against computer hacking.

Although no particular figure was put on the computer security services of Irish Water, it is interesting that it was suggested in the media at the time that, over five years, €1.2 million was spent on this kind of activity on the part of Irish Water.

One must bear in mind also that at least one of the newspapers controlled by Mr O’Brien has, since the emergence of the dispute about water charges and the legislation we considered in this House some days ago, run a fairly heavy campaign, with many editorials and articles, on the subject of Irish Water. This is a serious matter.

I will finish on two points. Last week in a different context, although Mr O’Brien had a walk-on part in it, the Ceann Comhairle, as Chairman of Dáil Éireann, publicly queried whether it would be necessary to introduce a system of fines to strengthen the powers of the Chair to prevent the abuse of Dáil privilege.

This House has its own Standing Orders, its independence and its own Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

As a member of that committee, I do not believe Members of this House are disposed to abusing their privilege at all, nor do I believe the use of financial penalties to preserve the privacy of important people the Irish political and economic environment should be permitted by this House. I do not believe we should go down that road. It is for the other House to make up its own mind on fines for its Members.

We must remember that these Houses are the defendants in a court action brought by Mr O’Brien. He has sued the institutions of this State. He has also sued individual Members of these Houses on occasion and has threatened to do so on many more occasions.

Free speech is very important. As far as I am concerned, the Cregan commission is dealing with just one set of issues, the activities of the IBRC, only some of which involve Mr O’Brien or companies connected with him.

However, there are other major issues to be borne in mind arising from the Moriarty report, which found Mr O’Brien had indirectly channelled the guts of €1 million to former [Fine Gael] Minister, Deputy [Michael] Lowry, after the awarding of a telecommunications licence to him.

It found that elaborate efforts to deceive the Moriarty tribunal had been made, including the falsification of letters to cover up the involvement of the relevant parties. I wish all speed and every success to the Cregan commission.

I welcome this legislation. Members have an obligation to be fair but not to be entirely impartial but it is important that these issues be dealt with in a process that is fair and impartial and, above all, has the means of establishing the truth, because the Irish people do deserve the truth.

Transcript via Oireachtas.ie

Previously: The Journalist Who Came In From The Cold

Timeline To A Killing

seanadsen2

sen1senate2senate3

36 Roman Catholics, 20 Protestants, 3 Quakers and 1 Jew.; 7 peers, a dowager countess (the Jewish Ellen Cuffe, Countess of Desart), 5 baronets and several knights. 

Opening of Seanad Éireann on December 16, 1922, as reported in the Irish Times.

New senators (half of whom were elected by public vote) included Mrs Stopford Green and Mrs Eileen Costello (top), pictured arriving at Leinster House, where the forum sat until it was abolished in 1936.

Good, egalitarian times.

Via Irish Times archive

Seanad Eireann

Thanks Sibling of Daedalus

90303403

The Taoiseach said the Seanad did nothing to challenge the excess of the Celtic Tiger and was outmoded.

Mr Kenny said all the Scandinavian countries had abolished their second chambers.

He said other systems, such as New Zealand, had shown it is perfectly possible to introduce checks and balances in a single-chamber parliament.

Mr Kenny said the abolition of the Seanad, along with the reduction by eight in the number of TDs, would mean a reduction of almost one third in the number of public representatives.

…Fianna Fáil has said it will campaign against the abolition of the Seanad.

The party favours reform of the upper chamber and Dara Calleary said abolishing the Seanad would lead to “less accountability and less transparency”.

…Sinn Féin Senator David Cullinane said the Government’s approach to Seanad reform is “ill-considered and rash”.

FIGHT!

Govt publishes details of Seanad abolition referendum RTE)

Previously: Checks And Balance

(Laura Hutton/Photocall Ireland)