Ming deserves an apology from Sean Barrett
The Ceann Comhairle's hysterical outrage can only be described as 'bullshit', writes Gene Kerrigan
/>IT'S extremely rare for anyone to question the Ceann Comhairle's behaviour -- presiding over the Dail, he seems practicably invulnerable to complaint, no matter what he does or says. Which makes it all the more important that his behaviour be freely examined.
On Thursday, December 19, Ceann Comhairle Sean Barrett chastised a member of the Dail, unfairly and inaccurately accusing that member of criminal behaviour. He said things that were not true.
Worse, he treated without respect the legitimate concerns of the people of a part of Roscommon, as expressed by their elected member in a wholly legitimate way.
Apologies are surely called for. From the Ceann Comhairle, Sean Barrett, for his questionable behaviour. From Ray Butler TD, Fine Gael, and Ruairi Quinn, Minister for Education, Labour, who expressed support for this behaviour. The Committee on Procedures and Privileges backed the Ceann Comhairle's behaviour (he chairs the committee).
Failure to hold the Ceann Comhairle, and the others involved, to the highest standards would be to declare the Dail a place where the normal civilised rules of conduct don't apply.
We are dealing here with Ming Flanagan. Ho, ho, ho. Let's get the laughs out of the way, first. The lad with the exuberant beard, the centre parting and the ponytail, the one who expounds on the values of pot. The media, where it bothered, treated what happened before Christmas as another example of parliamentary mirth. It was not. If the Oireachtas matters -- and I'm probably in a minority who believes that it does -- what happened wasn't the least bit funny.
Here's what happened.
The Dail was dealing with the second stage of the Water Services (No 2) Bill 2013. Minister for State Fergus O'Dowd led for the Government. The Bill was controversially being pushed quickly through the Dail.
That Thursday morning, Ming Flanagan stood up and grounded his short speech in the requirements of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980. He behaved impeccably. (Flanagan can behave badly -- the penalty points debacle springs to mind. That day, he was making a serious point in a graphic way.)
He told of how water supplied to the area around the town of Castlerea is unsuitable for drinking. "Kids outside my town cannot even brush their teeth with this water, and the Government is going to charge them for it."
He illustrated his speech by holding up a small bottle of what appeared to be cloudy water. He said it was "glorified piss", and "poison", containing cryptosporidium. And he challenged the minister to drink it. He then walked down and placed the bottle in front of the minister.
Fergus O'Dowd didn't seem the least put out. He looked at the water and moved it to another spot on the bench in front of him.
At that stage, the quality of the product being legislated for might have become an issue. Mr Flanagan's claims might have been tested. But nothing said in the rubber-stamp Dail matters.
The Ceann Comhairle, Sean Barrett, was not in the chamber when this happened. When he came back, he said: "Before we proceed to Leaders' Questions, I have been informed of an act of vandalism, which I regard it to be, in this chamber, which was totally out of character. Never before in the history of this chamber have I seen such behaviour by a member in walking down and handing a glass of dirty water to a minister. That is just outrageous and unacceptable behaviour and I have asked for an immediate meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to deal with the matter."
There is no more accurate term for this than bullshit. Sanctimonious, inaccurate, insulting bullshit. It mischaracterised what happened. It treated the facts of the matter as irrelevant and elevated Mr Barrett's emotions above the facts. It treated without respect the reputation of an elected member and denied his right to bring to the minister's attention, in a way of his choosing, the quality of the water being forced on Mr Flanagan's constituents.
True to his word, the Ceann Comhairle immediately arranged a meeting of the Committee on Procedures and Privileges, which immediately sent Ming Flanagan a letter. (Have these people really nothing better to do?)
"The Committee on Procedures and Privileges condemns without reservation the behaviour of Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan in Dail Eireann on 19 December 2013. It regards his actions as totally unacceptable and damaging to the reputation and standing of the House... any further behaviour of this kind will be severely dealt with."
Two things about this very weak letter. One, it didn't specify the conduct to which it referred. Two, it didn't ground its finding in any rule, regulation or standing order.
Vandalism involves illegally destroying or damaging property. It is criminal damage. A person found guilty of criminal damage, on summary conviction, can go to jail for a year. On indictment, the term can be up to 10 years.
There was no vandalism committed in the Dail that day. Mr Barrett, on being told what happened, decided -- from his position of privilege -- to call it vandalism. He did not claim to have consulted either the written or video record of the proceedings. There was no outrage expressed by those who witnessed what happened. Mr O'Dowd responded proportionately.
Had Mr Flanagan handed Mr O'Dowd an affidavit from a constituent, bearing witness to the condition of the water, no one could object. Flanagan did something more informative -- he provided a sample of the water.
Had he thrown the water at another member, had he smashed the bottle, it would be vandalism. Mr Barrett was not using the term in a metaphoric sense (social vandalism, moral vandalism, parliamentary vandalism), he used it in its normal, criminal sense.
Had anyone else in the Dail slandered a deputy in that fashion, it would be Mr Barrett's job to discipline them.
"Never before in the history of this chamber have I seen such behaviour..."
This is breathtakingly nonsensical. Mr Barrett didn't see what happened. He hasn't seen everything that happened in the history of the Dail. Nothing happened that remotely justified this hysterical level of outrage.
Is this really the worst the Dail has seen? Worthy of accusations of criminal behaviour? In a parliament which on late sittings has seen glassy-eyed TDs staggering out of the bar, into the chamber to vote as instructed, on a Bill some of them have never read?
Before writing its very weak letter, did the members of the Committee on Procedures and Privileges consult both the written record and the video of the matter? If not,
on what were they basing their condemnation? Were they told what happened, by the Ceann Comhairle, who wasn't there when it happened? Did they call in witnesses? Did they consider asking Mr Flanagan for his side of the matter?
In recent years, the Dail has become redundant. Its job is to provide legislation for the executive -- the Government -- to carry through. Instead, the Government monopolises legislation, the party TDs, under threat of having their careers destroyed by the party bosses, vote as instructed.
No comments:
Post a Comment