DOCSLIB.ORG

JUSTICE for DAY SCHOOL SURVIVORS - EXEC - O'keeffe V

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
JUSTICE for DAY SCHOOL SURVIVORS - EXEC - O'keeffe V Department of the Taoiseach Department of the Tánaiste Department of Education & Skills Mr. Micheál Martin TD Mr. Leo Varadkar TD Ms. Norma Foley TD Taoiseach Minister for Enterprise, Trade Department of Education and Skills Government Buildings, and Employment Marlborough Street, Upper Merrion Street, Department of Business, Dublin 1. D01 RC96 Dublin 2 Enterprise and Innovation, Kildare Street, T: (01) 6183103 | M: (086) 390 0312 T: +353 1 619 4000 Dublin 2, D02 TD30 E: [email protected] PE: [email protected] E: [email protected] T: + 353 1 631 2172 W: https://bit.ly/3eUY1rS PE: [email protected] E: [email protected] W: https://bit.ly/2AdiVUa PE: [email protected] W: http://leovaradkar.ie PLEASE QUOTE REF NUMBER ON ALL CORRESPONDENCE Your Ref: 1800682/AM RE: 200731 - JUSTICE for DAY SCHOOL SURVIVORS - EXEC - O'Keeffe v. Ireland (Application No. 35810/09) - https://bit.ly/38rZBiA JUSTICE in IRELAND is JUSTICE in EUROPE 31st July 2020 Dear Taoiseach, Tánaiste, Minister Foley, Minister O’Gorman, Minister Coveney, Minister McEntee, Other Ministers, TDs and Senators, MEPs, Mr President and those in receipt of this letter, I have awaited a clear response from the Minister for Education in consultation with the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and other relevant ministers on the question of justice for day school survivors of child sexual abuse specifically where a criminal conviction has been obtained. Three weeks ago, I note in an interview with PJ Coogan on The Opinion Line on Cork’s 96FM (checkout timestamp from 50:49 to 52:26) on 6th July with Taoiseach Micheál Martin, the question of day school survivors was discussed, but strangely was not given any priority in the Programme for Government nor marked for special consideration and urgent attention where further delay has characterised the response to this important issue by successive governments. Further examination will be required where ‘credible’ cases of child sexual abuse in the day school setting can be confirmed by other means such as medical, psychological or psychiatric reports in conjunction with statements provided to a relevant authority. No statute of limitation will apply in such child abuse cases. Day School Survivors have not waited patiently but painfully for their day of justice. The Irish state has not complied with that Judgment (Application No. 35810/09) https://bit.ly/38rZBiA. Page 1 of 3 This month saw the anniversary of the Dáil Debate in 2018 (https://bit.ly/38bqpU7) on the issue of the defeat of the ‘prior complaint’ argument and the inclusion of the ‘criminal conviction’ argument (https://bit.ly/31tD2sG), followed by the anniversary of Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill report in 2019 (https://bit.ly/2BEjmYo) which ‘concluded that the ‘prior complaint’ condition was not compatible with a correct Implementation of the Judgement of the ECtHR in the Louise O’Keeffe case’. My pursuit to address the Committee of Ministers at the European Council will remain my objective as long as the Committee of Ministers do not understand the absurdity of the pitiably obvious case of Ireland not providing compensation for survivors with a ‘criminal conviction’ of child sexual abuse in the day school setting in compliance with the ECtHR Judgment - O'Keeffe v. Ireland (Application No. 35810/09). Here attached are the summary figures of the national audits of the religious in Ireland by the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church in Ireland which sadly confirms the 6% ‘criminal conviction’ rate - https://www.mvh.ie/research/NBSCCCI-Diocesan-Review-All-Ireland.pdf. It is a far higher percentage than the conviction rates for adult rape cases in Ireland, running marginally just above 1%. Both statistics are a blight and shame on the Irish criminal justice system and no badge of honour in the international community. Justice must be delivered in our legislature and judiciary on this issue of child sexual abuse in the day school setting. In truth, Ireland has fought this for over 30 years since cases began from 1990 if not before. Linked is a reference to work in progress in assessing the number of high court cases listed against the Department of Education from 1990-2020 - https://www.mvh.ie/research/1990-2020-High_Court_Complainant-v- Minister_for_Education.pdf. I have to review all cases and find which ones involved actions for child sexual abuse in day schools. Plaintiffs are still being pressurised, coerced and constructively denied relief and remedy in keeping with the ECHR Judgment. Plaintiffs are still being put in the invidious position of discontinuing their cases against the Department of Education Page 2 of 3 and religious orders before completion of their successful case in a criminal court. I am dealing with such a case at the minute. My illustration of 100 children in a schoolyard demands representation nationally and internationally, where I ask anyone to go into a schoolyard of 100 children, all of whom have been sexually abused, where you are set the task of picking six who will have their perpetrator convicted, the remining 94 will remain in the yard despite coming forward in great distress. If Ireland cannot even have the decency and grace to extend acknowledgement, relief and remedy to complainants with a ‘criminal conviction’, for the nonsense that has gone on with the criteria of the State Claims Agency since 2015, then Ireland has no shame and needs reminding in the judicial and legislative pathways that that is a profoundly unacceptable situation, repugnant to any decent person in our society. Like others such as Dr. Conor O’Mahony, the Special Rapporteur on Child Protection, appointed by the Minister for Children, my argument to ensure all ‘credible cases of child sexual abuse’ in the day school setting must be addressed in a comprehensive resolution and inclusive criteria will continue. I cannot leave the 94% behind in the schoolyard no more than the 6% who received a ‘criminal conviction’ of their abuser who have not even beenmentioned to the Committee of Ministers in considering Ireland’s long-awaited Action Plan in execution of the ECHR Judgment in January 2014. In truth, I am seeking the one, the one without any sense of hope that no one has given a thought to for the ordeal they have suffered, in keeping with the one lost sheep parable which has always inspired me from the outset of my work as a survivor on behalf of survivors. If the O’Keeffe Judgment cannot even rescue the 6%, my work is a longways off nearing any completion. My petition (http://chng.it/PTt2FN5Jmz) which I invite you all to sign, is a call for inclusion of this nationally and internationally important children’s matter to be included in the Programme for Government (https://bit.ly/3ihwfbe); to deliver a credible Action Plan in execution of the ECHR Judgment to the Department of Execution of Judgment at the ECHR on 8th September 2020 as promised (https://bit.ly/38hxe6D); and engage with survivors of day school child sexual abuse in Ireland. I would appreciate acknowledgement and urgent action on this issue as the current COVID-19 situation only intensifies the distress by further delay. Yours sincerely, Mark Vincent Healy Mark Vincent Healy Survivor Campaigner seeking ‘Rescue Services’ and ‘Safe Space Provisioning’ for survivors of clerical child sexual abuse Founder of Council of Survivors | Member of RISN | Member of ECA Campaigner for Justice for Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse in Day Schools In Ireland and the European Parliament Negotiator for Residential Institutional Survivor Consultation Talks with the Department of Education Assistant and negotiator to many legal case closures and settlements Email: [email protected] Mobile: +353-87-6374006 LinkedIn: Mark Vincent Healy Twitter: @MarkVHealy Page 3 of 3 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Susan Denham
    Susan Denham Chief Justice Denham has been a judge of the superior doesn’t have what it takes’. They will say, courts for over twenty years, having been a practising ‘Women don’t have what it takes’.” barrister for twenty years prior to that. She was appointed Whether consciously or otherwise, Chief Justice to the High Court in 1991 and to the Supreme Court in Denham has, throughout her career been subject to this 1992. In July 2011, she was appointed Chief Justice of pressure to succeed. She has not only succeeded, but also Ireland, by the President, Mary McAleese. excelled. Chief Justice Denham is the longest serving member of When she “took silk” in 1987, rising from Junior to the current Supreme Court and in her career has Senior Counsel, Chief Justice Denham represented the distinguished herself as one of the finest judges in the State in a number of significant extradition cases and she history of the state. Her judgments are thoughtful, erudite became an expert in Judicial Review. She spent ten years and clear. While upholding at all times the Rule of Law at the inner Bar before being appointed to the High Court and delivering clearly principled legal judgments, Chief (1991) and to the Supreme Court the following year. Justice Denham’s judicial pronouncements exude a Chief Justice Denham’s appointment to the Supreme striking humanity. She seems acutely aware of the Court made history. She was the first woman ever to sit on difficulties faced by ordinary people in this country, of the that bench and for eight years, she was the sole female trials and tribulations of family life, of the impact of crime member of the Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Remote Court Hearings
    Oireachtas Library & Research Service | Bill Digest L&RS Note Remote Court Hearings Rebecca Halpin, Parliamentary Researcher, Law Abstract<xx> July 2020 28 July 2020 This L&RS Note considers the use of remote hearings in Ireland during the Covid-19 pandemic. The paper describes the way in which remote hearings have been introduced in Ireland and the type of matters in which they are used. The paper then considers the difficulties associated with remote hearings, the need for legislative reform, and circumstances in which remote hearings may be unsuitable. The L&RS gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Dr Rónán Kennedy, School of Law, NUI Galway in reviewing the contents of this Note in advance of publication. Oireachtas Library & Research Service | L&RS Note Contents Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Remote hearings – an overview ...................................................................................................... 3 ICT in Irish courts – capability and capacity .................................................................................... 4 Recent developments that facilitated the introduction of remote hearings .................................. 5 Impact and response to Covid-19 pandemic ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Connections & Community
    FOSTERING MEANINGFUL CONNECTIONS & COMMUNITY IN CHALLENGING TIMES VIRTUAL • INTERACTIVE • LIVE • ON DEMAND CONNACHT ULSTER LEINSTER MUNSTER IRELAND FINLAND BRITAIN AMERICA IGC NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2021 17th April 2021 • www.igc.ie Main Sponsor TU Dublin Table of CONTENTS Welcome & Thank you from the IGC President 3 Conference Programme 9 Workshop Sessions 11 IGC Conference Speakers 13 President’s Address & Reports 21 Infinite Possibilities at TU Dublin 46 A Guide to Accessing the IGC Virtual Conference 54 Exciting Times at IT Sligo 60 Sponsor Acknowledgment 65 List of Sponsors and Exhibitors 67 ATTENDING VIRTUAL CONFERENCE 1 Complete Pre Conference Log-in Check by Monday 12th April 2 Browse Conference Platform & Book Exhibitor Chats from 8am Monday 12th April 3 Attend Conference from 8am Saturday 17th April or on demand to Sunday 16th May. Full details on page 52 YOUR FUTURE IS I OURUR FOCUSUSS #choo#choose#cho elyit LLYYIT Runner-Up Institute TTeechnology of the YYeear 20211 (Sunday Times, Good University Guide) 9/10 of LYLYIT students have either 4,4,500+ returned to further study or Students gained employment within 4 months of graduation 2 50+ Campuses in Donegal CAO Programmes 37 72% Masters & Postgraduate of courses offer work programmes placement opportunities 15 CPDD part-time & 40+ postgradpgduate programmes Clubss & Societies on campus for Teachers & Educators 43% Affordable & Plentiful Student Accommodation increase in student enrolment in the last seven years ToTo book a schoo school visit, to arrange a campus tour or to findd out mmore about LYIT programmes annd CAO programme options contact: Fiona Kelly Letterkennyy Inst titute offT TeTechnology Schools EngagementEngagem Officeer E: fi[email protected] or [email protected] T: (074) 9186105 M: (086) 33809630963 LYIT_Stats Advert.indd 1 16/02/2021 12:52 WELCOME & THANK YOU Dear Conference Delegate, A warm welcome to you all to the 2021 IGC annual conference.
    [Show full text]
  • The High Court
    THE HIGH COURT RECORD NO: 2015/4888P Denis O’Brien Plaintiff AND Clerk of Dail Eireann, Sean Barrett, Joe Carey, John Halligan, Martin Heydon, Paul Kehoe, John Lyons, Dinny McGinley, Sean O Fearghail, Aengus O’Snodaigh and Emmet Stagg (Members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges of Dáil Éireann), Ireland and the Attorney General Defendants JUDGMENT of Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh delivered on Friday 31st March, 2017 1. The principle of comity as between the legislature and the courts in a system embodying the separation of powers has been described as follows: “This principle is that of mutual respect and forbearance between the legislative and judicial branches, and it has been recognised by the courts as one of the foundations for the privileges (including the privilege of free speech) enjoyed by the House. … The relationship between the courts and 1 Parliament is a matter of the highest constitutional significance. It should be, and generally is, marked by mutual respect and restraint. The underlying assumption is that what is under discussion or determination by either the judiciary or the legislature should not be discussed or determined by the other. The judiciary and the legislature should respect their respective roles.”1 This case raises important issues as to the role of the Court when the principle of comity is breached. Is an individual entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts where a member of the Houses of the Oireachtas has engaged in utterances which, if spoken outside the House, would constitute a breach of a court order obtained by the individual? While this arose in the present case in relation to the revelation of private banking information of the plaintiff, the implications are much wider and would arise whatever the private nature of the information published, be it information relating to a person’s banking, taxation or other financial affairs, health or medical matters, relationships or sexual disposition, or any other information of a private and confidential nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Ireland Independent Judiciary 2006
    Brian Curtin v Dail Eireann, Seanad Eireann, et al. Supreme Court [2006] IESC 14, 2 IR 556 9 March 2006 HEADNOTE: Article 35.4.1o of the Constitution provides:- "A judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court shall not be removed from office except for stated misbehaviour or incapacity, and then only upon resolutions passed by Dail Eireann and by Seanad Eireann [lower house and upper house of parliament, respectively] calling for his removal." Pursuant to s. 39 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924, Circuit Court Judges held office by the same tenure as High Court Judges. The applicant, a judge of the Circuit Court, sought to challenge by way of judicial review, a direction of an Oireachtas [Parliament] committee (established following the proposal of a resolution to remove him from office pursuant to Article 35.4.1o of the Constitution) to produce his personal computer to the committee. It was accepted that the computer contained material which constituted child pornography, as defined by the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998, but the applicant contended that the material was not knowingly in his possession. The applicant had been prosecuted on indictment for offences under the Act of 1998 and acquitted by direction of the trial judge, by reason of the fact that the warrant used to enter his property had been invalid on the date of its execution, when the computer was seized by the gardai. The computer was retained in the possession of the Garda Commissioner. As part of the scheme to enable the Oireachtas to deal with the case of the applicant under Article 35.4.1o, the Oireachtas passed the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) (Amendment) Act 2004, which provided for the attendance of a judge as a witness before an Oireachtas committee and the Child Trafficking and Pornography (Amendment) Act 2004 which was designed to permit hearings to be conducted and material to be considered without breach of the Act of 1998.
    [Show full text]
  • The Irish Experience by P.J
    Management of the Courts: the Irish Experience By P.J. Fitzpatrick, Chief Executive Officer, Irish Courts’ Service Background The management and administration of the courts in Ireland had remained essentially unchanged since the Courts of Justice Act of 1924, which provided for the courts system of the new State shortly after independence.1 The 1924 regime left a vacuum, failing to address the need for an independent administrative structure for the Courts. There was, for example, no Department such as the Lord Chancellor’s Department. Under the Act, the Department of Justice managed the Courts and their funding apart from judicial salaries. Those arrangements followed what is often loosely referred to as the “Ministry of Justice” model. Responsibility for the provision of budgetary, staffing and other resources, and the management of those resources, rested with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, as it is now known, through its Courts Division. As distinct from the allocation of business before the courts, the Judiciary – although it might be consulted and make representations – had little input into the allocation of resources or the way in which they were deployed. The extent of the Minister for Justice’s remit - and limits of the Judiciary’s – in this regard is best summed up by the provisions which governed the management of the various offices of the High Court and staffing arrangements for the Superior Courts generally. Senior management in the courts was “subject to the general direction of the Minister in regard
    [Show full text]
  • Deputy Question Answers
    FOR ANSWER MAY 2020 Question Office Ref Deputy Question Answers 5.223 Frank Feighan To ask the Minister for Health if frontline workers All employees that are employed directly by the HSE (rehires, students in the HSE who have to stay at home to mind etc) are being employed on the approved salary scale for their grades, elderly parents will get a similar special leave are in receipt of standard terms and conditions of employment and have agreement to be paid at this time just as frontline access to the relevant superannuation scheme. Detailed guidance and workers who have children and have to stay at FAQs have been prepared and circulated by the Department of Public home have as announced this week? Expenditure and Reform in relation to payment for public servants while on special leave in relation to a COVID 19 related absences. As per the DPER FAQ document, where employees are eligible to receive special leave with pay while absent from work due to COVID-19, payment is based on basic salary and fixed allowances only and excludes unsocial hours premium payments. This applies to all public sector employees. A copy of DPERs document is available to view publicly here: https://www.gov.ie/en/news/092fff-update-on-working-arrangements- and-leave-associated-with-covid-19-fo/ 5.224 Frank Feighan To ask the Minister for Health how long the State A major part of the Government's Action Plan in response to Covid-19 will be paying for the use of private hospitals was to substantially increase the capacity of public healthcare facilities to until? The total cost involved? When private cope with the anticipated additional demand.
    [Show full text]
  • Representations Received by the Chairman's Office from Public
    Representations received by the Chairman’s Office from Public Representatives in 2020 On behalf of a Name General Issue Grand Total person Aidan Davitt 2 4 6 Aindrias Moynihan 0 20 20 Alan Hayes 1 0 1 Alan Kelly 0 2 2 Anne Rabbitte 1 1 2 Barry Cowen 0 3 3 Bernard Durkan 0 2 2 Brendan Griffin 0 21 21 Brian Stanley 0 1 1 Cathal Crowe 1 7 8 Catherine Martin 0 1 1 Catherine Murphy 6 4 10 Charlie Flanagan 0 5 5 Charlie McConalogue 1 4 5 Christopher O’Sullivan 10 12 22 Cian O’Callaghan 1 0 1 Ciaran Cannon 0 6 6 Claire Kerrane 0 1 1 Colm Brophy 1 2 3 Colm Burke 0 1 1 Cormac Devlin 0 14 14 Dara Calleary 0 1 1 Dara Mulvey 0 1 1 Darragh O’Brien 1 15 16 David Norris 0 1 1 Denis Naughten 0 16 16 Denise Mitchell 0 1 1 Dessie Ellis 1 1 2 Eamon O Cuiv 0 3 3 Emer Higgins 1 0 1 Eoghan Murphy 0 1 1 Fergus O’Dowd 0 3 3 Finian McGrath 0 1 1 Francis Noel Duffy 0 1 1 Frank Feighan 0 12 12 Garrett Ahearn 1 1 2 Gerard Craughwell 0 1 1 Gino Kenny 0 1 1 Heather Humphreys 0 9 9 Helen McEntee 0 6 6 Hildegarde Naughten 1 3 4 Imelda Munster 0 2 2 Jack Chambers 0 2 2 1 On behalf of a Name General Issue Grand Total person Jackie Cahill 3 2 5 James Browne 0 6 6 James Lawless 1 11 12 James O’Connor 3 7 10 Jennifer Carroll MacNeill 2 0 2 Jennifer Murnane O’Connor 4 4 8 Jerry Buttimer 0 2 2 Jim Daly 1 1 2 Joe Carey 3 3 6 Joe Flaherty 0 8 8 Joe McHugh 1 4 5 Joe O’Brien 1 0 1 Joe O’Reilly 0 1 1 John Brady 0 1 1 John Brassill 0 1 1 John Cummins 1 0 1 John Lahart 2 3 5 John Lawless 0 2 2 John McGahon 1 3 4 John McGuinness 3 13 16 John Paul Phelan 1 4 5 Johnny Mythen 1 0 1 Josepha
    [Show full text]
  • Oireachtas Members' Questions: Covid-19
    Oireachtas Members’ Questions: Covid-19 Answers Due: Monday, 11 May 2020 Oireachtas Members’ Questions: Covid-19 Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 3 2. State Examinations Questions ................................................................... 4 2.1. Approach to State Examinations 4 2.2. State Examinations Logistics 5 2.3. State Examinations Advisory Group 9 3. Schools Sector Questions ........................................................................ 11 3.1. Continuity of Learning 11 3.2. Special Educational Needs Provision 13 3.3. Technology and broadband access 16 3.4. School Transport 17 3.5. Staff Relations – SNA Redeployment 18 3.6. Wellbeing 19 3.7. Re-opening of Schools 21 4. Tertiary Sector Questions ......................................................................... 23 4.1. Accommodation 23 4.2. Tertiary Admissions 25 4.3. Continuity of Learning at Tertiary 26 4.4. Financial Sustainability of the Tertiary Sector 27 4.5. Student Financial Supports 29 4.6. DARE Scheme 31 4.7. FET Training Allowances 31 5. International Study & Students Issues .................................................... 33 5.1. Irish Students Abroad 33 6. Transfers .................................................................................................... 35 6.1. Transferred to other Departments 35 6.2. Received from other Departments 35 —— 2 Oireachtas Members’ Questions: Covid-19 1. Introduction The Oireachtas has put in place an interim process whereby Covid-19 related queries can be submitted by TDs on a weekly basis and forwarded to Departments for reply in lieu of the Parliamentary Question process which has been temporarily suspended. The Minister’s responses to queries received will be presented in a single document for circulation to all Deputies and for publication on the Department’s website subsequently. This document is the fifth of the weekly response documents prepared under the revised question system.
    [Show full text]
  • Courts Service Ireland
    Response questionnaire project group Timeliness Courts' Service Ireland 1 The Court System and Available Statistics 1.1 The Court System The Irish justice system consists primarily of four tiers of courts; the District Court, the Circuit Court, the High Court and the Supreme Court. The District Court is the lowest court, having jurisdiction over minor civil and criminal matters. The civil jurisdiction does not exceed €6,348.69. For criminal matters the Court only hears minor offences. It only hears criminal cases where the maximum custodial sentence permitted upon conviction is 12 months or up to 2 years where a consecutive sentence is imposed. The District Court also has some jurisdiction in the family law area. Proceedings in Family Law are not heard in open court and are as informal as is practicable. The District Court also has wide powers in relation to liquor and lottery licensing. The Circuit Court has jurisdiction in most criminal jury trials and civil matters with a jurisdiction not exceeding €38,092.14. It also hears appeals from the District Court. The Circuit and High Court have concurrent jurisdiction in the area of Family Law. The Circuit Court has jurisdiction in a wide range of family law proceedings, (judicial separation, divorce, nullity and appeals from the District Court). The High Court has full and original jurisdiction in all matters and is the constitutional Court of first instance. In terms of its criminal jurisdiction, it sits as the Central Criminal Court and has jurisdiction over the most serious criminal trials, including those relating to murder, rape and serious sexual offences.
    [Show full text]
  • Dáil Éireann
    Vol. 996 Thursday, No. 3 30 July 2020 DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES DÁIL ÉIREANN TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised) 30/07/2020A00100Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Covid-19) Bill 2020: Second Stage � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 384 30/07/2020G00400Ceisteanna - Questions � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 396 30/07/2020G00500Ceisteanna ar Sonraíodh Uain Dóibh - Priority Questions � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 396 30/07/2020G00600State Examinations � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 396 30/07/2020G01600School Accommodation� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 398 30/07/2020H00550School Funding � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 400 30/07/2020J00300School Transport � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 402 30/07/2020J01300Ceisteanna Eile - Other Questions � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 404 30/07/2020J01400Citizens’ Assembly � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 404
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Forum on Parliamentary Privilege
    Report of the Forum on Parliamentary Privilege As made to the Ceann Comhairle, Mr Seán Ó Fearghaíl TD 21st December 2017 Table of Contents Membership of Forum 2 Chair’s introduction 3 1. Summary of recommendations 4 2. Background to the Forum 6 3. The Forum’s Work Programme 7 4. Themes from submissions received 9 5. The Constitution 11 6. Parliamentary privilege in other jurisdictions 14 7. Forum’s recommendations 16 8. Matters not recommended for change by the Forum 21 Appendix A – Procedure in other parliaments 22 Appendix B – Parliaments examined 23 Appendix C – Draft guidelines on the use by members of their constitutional privilege of freedom of debate 24 Appendix D – Standing Order 61 25 Appendix E – Standing Order 59 29 Appendix F – Summary of rules in parliaments examined 30 Appendix G – Forum terms of reference, advertisement, data protection policy, etc. 36 Appendix H – Submissions 42 1. Mr Kieran Fitzpatrick 42 2. Dr Jennifer Kavanagh 51 3. Deputies Clare Daly and Mick Wallace 53 4. Mr Kieran Coughlan 58 5. Deputy Mattie McGrath 65 6. Deputy Josepha Madigan 67 7. Sinn Féin 69 8. Deputy Catherine Murphy 70 9. Deputy Danny Healy Rae 71 10. Solidarity-People Before Profit 72 11. Deputy Lisa Chambers 77 12. Deputy Brendan Howlin, Labour Party leader 79 13. Deputy Eamon Ryan 83 14. Fianna Fáil 85 15. Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors 88 16. Fine Gael 95 1 Membership of Forum Membership of Forum on Parliamentary Privilege1 David Farrell, academic (Chair) Professor David Farrell holds the Chair of Politics at UCD where he is Head of Politics and International Relations.
    [Show full text]