Before we proceed to deal with the University of Limerick, I ask our visitors to bear with us as we have some committee work to deal with. There is no point in asking them to withdraw.
On this morning’s meeting, I want to clarify an issue raised. I mentioned an issue relating to the Minister for Finance, NAMA and officials in the House. I wish to make clear that the two other external groups dealt with the potential for external legal challenges. The issue relating to the House is quite different, but significant.
I ask people to bear with me on this as it may be news to them. Senior people in the House made it very clear to me, as Chairman, that if they were not happy with the wording in the report, they would prevent it being issued and take it to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, CPP, to be approved by it. That is what was said this morning. This is not intended to imply that any official had attempted to interfere with the work of the committee, as has been reported in the media.
I want to outline the factual position. In recognition of the fact that the decisions or actions of the committee can have legal and financial consequences, a protocol was adopted by the CPP and the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission in November 2014. That protocol, which is lengthy and will be circulated, includes the following, and I quote selectively for the purposes of clarity:
Where the committee, the clerk to the committee or the relevant principal officer considers it necessary, procedural advice may be supplemented with legal advice from the Parliamentary Legal Advisor. [We understand that]. Where a committee proposes to make a decision otherwise than in accordance with the advice from the Parliamentary Legal Advisor, it shall stand referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges which shall consider the matter. In such circumstances, the committee concerned shall take no further action until the Committee on Procedure and Privileges has reported on the matter and the House has considered that report.
Standing Order 107(1)(g) requires that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges considers any report on a matter so referred to it.
I wish to make clear that given the sensitive nature of the report, officials were not only entitled, but obliged to bring to my attention the risk that the referral of our draft report to the CPP might be an outcome and to suggest that the draft report should be reviewed by the Office of the Parliamentary Legal Advisor. I wish to make it clear also that the advice given to me was provided to be of assistance, having regard to the content of the draft report among other matters and how those potentially affected might respond to publication.
The draft report, as I said earlier, was presented with my approval and I did not feel any pressure to make any changes to that or any veto. However, members will be aware that consistent with the protocol and officials' advice, the committee had the benefit of the views of members of staff of the Parliamentary Legal Advisor in the course of a number of the meetings at which the draft report I brought forward was considered. Members will agree that this was appropriate assistance and in no way interfered with the work of the committee. I hope members will agree this explains the situation. I accept that my linking that particular inhouse Standing Order with the issues involving the Minister and NAMA may have given the impression that there was a legal threat internally in the House when what officials were saying to me was to draw my attention to a Standing Order of which many members may not be aware. That Standing Order states clearly that where a committee proposes to make a decision otherwise than in accordance with the advice from the Parliamentary Legal Advisor, it shall be referred to the CPP. We would not have been aware that essentially had the Office of the Parliamentary Legal Advisor not been happy with our report , in layman’s English, the report would have been taken from us and given to the CPP for it to decide what action to take. Under procedures in the House and the protocol agreed between the commission and the Office of the Parliamentary Legal Advisor, we would not have been in a position to complete or publish our report. That was news to me; officials were bringing it to my attention not in any threatening manner, just to alert me to the fact that if it looked like causing a problem with the Office of the Parliamentary Legal Advisor, this would be the likely outcome. Members may not have been aware of that protocol and its implications. Is that clear?
