Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Dec 1970

Vol. 250 No. 9

Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann (Privilege and Procedure) Bill, 1970 : Committee and Final Stages.

Sections I and 2 put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill".

As the Official Secrets Act is framed it gives a Minister power to authorise a subordinate to disclose official information. I am not certain, from the wording of the Act, what the position is of a person who was a Minister and who might refuse to disclose information. If that difficulty arises, perhaps the Minister would consult the Attorney-General to see what the precise position is in these circumstances. Who is authorised to give a direction to disclose the information if it is required?

This matter was not adverted to before. I do not think it is referred to in the Committee's Interim Report. Therefore, I have not examined it and I could not give any undertakings in regard to it. This Bill was produced very quickly to meet the requirements of the Committee. On what I might call the additional point raised by Deputy Cosgrave, let me say that I shall look into the matter.

I do not see any provision in this Bill for the administration of an oath to the witnesses. Even if it is believed that this is covered by some previous enactment of some sort, I would have thought it extremely desirable to put it in the Bill.

There is a provision in subsection 4 (b) about the taking of an oath or the making of an affirmation——

What does the Minister hope this Bill will achieve?

I am not pushing this Bill through the House. If the House does not want it, that is quite all right with me. I am doing it in response to the request of the Committee.

Having received the Bill half an hour ago, may I make a comment particularly on section 3? I do not think the Minister can feel that we are pushing the Bill through the House. Perhaps he would comment on statements which witnesses would make before this Committee. Admittedly, it will enjoy the same immunities and privileges as if they were witnesses before the High Court. However, can the Minister conceive that, subsequent to a report being made by the Committee of Public Accounts, a particular report would be used and would be availed of by the Attorney-General in a criminal prosecution before the judicial process of the State? This could prove to be one of the most difficult pieces of legislation introduced for decades here. I make that point in particular in respect of section 3. I am not concerned merely that the Members of this House should have full access to all the information but also that the rights of citizens should receive equal care and consideration. I am not suggesting that the Bill is in any way rushed through this House but I suggest that such a major piece of legislation deserves considerable care and discussion at this point of time.

We set up a Committee of Public Accounts. This item was referred to them. They, in their wisdom, having dscussed it, decided there was only one way to deal with it. They suggested to the Minister that a Bill should be introduced to deal with it in that way. Members of each party of this House are on that Committee. That Bill is before us today. I do not know what all the talk is about.

To come back to my point, there is no provision in this Bill for an oath. In my opinion, the method of drafting is defective. The section reads——

The Parliamentary Secretary should not interrupt in that disgusting fashion. He should keep his mouth shut.

They did not consult with Deputy Desmond or Deputy——

The subsection reads as follows:

(4) If any person—

(a) on being duly summoned as a witness before the committee makes default in attending, or

(b) being in attendance as a witness before the committee refuses to take an oath or to make an affirmation when legally required by the committee to do so, or to produce any document in his power or control legally required by the committee to be produced by him or to answer any question to which the committee may legally require an answer.

(c) fails or refuses to send to the committee any document in his power or control legally required by the committee to be sent to it by the person, or

(d) does anything which would, if the committee were a court of justice having power to commit for contempt of court, be contempt of such court,

the committee may certify the offence of that person under the hand of the chairman of the committee to the High Court and the High Court may, after such inquiry as it thinks proper to make, punish or take steps for the punishment of that person in like manner as if he had been guilty of contempt of the High Court.

Where is the provision requiring the Committee to do so? It is not in the Bill. This is an example of hasty legislation——

What powers have the Committee normally?

The Committee does not administer an oath. I have been there frequently. I do not know if the Minister for Transport and Power has been there.

(Cavan): Have they power——

Could I answer this quickly?

Could you stop interrupting, please?

We are wasting time.

The Deputy wasted time over this thing. He would not take good advice when it was given to him. The Committee may certify the offence. What is the offence?

The offence, if the Committee——

If the Committee have, in fact, got powers somewhere, that is one aspect of the matter, but I do not believe they have. So far as administering the oath to anybody is concerned, I do not believe they have that power.

The 1924 Act was introduced for the specific purpose of permitting an oath to be administered by a Select Committee of the House. It is fully covered by that special Act There is no point in duplication.

There is every point here, considering the trouble the Deputy ran into already.

This legislation was drafted hurriedly in response to the request of the all-Party committee. It is introduced by the Government in response to that and in the belief that it would receive the unanimous support of the House. If there is any question of there not being unanimity on it, I propose to withdraw the Bill.

Why not put in a simple section, in case there be any doubt about the matter: "The Committee is hereby empowered to administer oaths "?

I am one of the two Labour Party Members on the Committee of Public Accounts. This Bill is precisely what the Committee asked for unanimously. It is also worth pointing out that, as I read section I of the Bill, the powers given to the Committee extend while engaged in the performance of the functions assigned to it by order of Dáil Éireann made on 1st December, 1970. Since the powers are limited in that way I do not think there is any major innovation of any sort such as Deputy Desmond is worried about. I should like to make it clear that, as far as I am concerned, this has been promptly done in response to the Committee's request and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
Top
Share