The Taoiseach's allegation that we wanted it both ways is unfounded. We only want it one way and that is expressed in section 2. We want to establish with certainty that statements made in any committee of this House will have the same immunity and privileges as statements made in the Dáil or Seanad. There is nothing else we want.
Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Privilege and Procedure) Bill, 1976: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I had not intended to intervene as Deputies will readily understand, but certain remarks by Deputy Lynch make it necessary for me to clarify the basis of the complaint which I had brought and which leads to this Bill.
On a point of order, I was refused permission to discuss them and the Minister might reserve his remarks to the committee.
It is important that the matter before the committee be not referred to.
My point is that I am not complaining about political allegations; I am complaining about a failure to accept my specific and categorical denial of certain factual allegations implying that I, as a Minister, lied to the House. That is a serious matter.
There must be no discussion on a matter that is before the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 1:
That section 3 be deleted.
In regard to this section there is one point I should like to raise. The Taoiseach seems to dismiss much of the argument I made in favour of its deletion. He failed, for instance, to refer to the point I made in respect of a witness summoned before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges or any other committee and who might make wild, false and defamatory allegations in respect of a Member of the House or of a member of the public, that he could make these allegations with immunity so far as privilege is concerned. The committee would be exercising a judicial function but I suggested that their judicial functions do not extend so far as would the functions of a court in dealing with a witness who knew he was making false allegations, who knew he was telling untruths in the witness box under oath. That would be a serious aspect of section 3 if this section were to be passed.
The other point I wish to make in relation to this section is that a summons to a person who was regarded as necessary for the purpose of giving evidence before this committee could be signed by one member of the committee. With due respect, a member of that committee could act from various motivations, political or otherwise. In effect he would be having the same powers of subpoena that a court of the land would have. Therefore, any member of the public could be required under subpoena to attend that committee and to give evidence or produce documents within his possession or procurement. That is far too great a power to extend and entrust to a non-judicial person as any member of that committee must be since members of the Judiciary are not Members of the Houses.
Another point which may not be very important or relevant but to which it is necessary to refer is the question of powers of conviction since the Taoiseach seemed to imply that I suggested that the committee had such powers. I made no such suggestion but, by the signature of one of their members, the committee have powers to set in train such a process. A person who, for perhaps, good and valid reasons was unwilling to produce either himself or documents within his possession or procurement could find himself before a criminal court on the signature of a political member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. That is too great a hazard to which to subject a member of the public. If he examines what I have said, I am sure the Taoiseach will agree that section 3 has no place in the function or powers that we entrust to committees of this House.
I do not think there is much point in discussing the section since we are deleting it but I would point out that what was here was precisely the same as was contained in the 1970 Bill introduced by Deputy Lynch.
I have said already that on that occasion the committee were investigating a particular matter with a limit on the powers entrusted to them in respect of their investigations. As soon as the matter entrusted to them under a specific order of this House was investigated completely that provision had no further effect whereas the provision which was proposed here would continue to empower a member of the committee to summon a person to produce himself or documents within his possession to a committee. This provision would be there for all time and for all committees. Therefore, there is a very marked distinction between the provision in this Bill and the similar provision introduced for a specific purpose in the 1970 Act.
I do not see much point in discussing this section since we do not intend passing it. However, the fact is that it is normal procedure that if somebody signs a witness summons, a person cannot be convicted except by a court.
I have said that.
The proposal here was the same as that introduced by Deputy Lynch in 1970 in respect of the investigation by the Public Accounts Committee. We wanted to ensure that the same penalties would attach in respect of any committee. As was shown recently the power of a committee to summon witnesses does not exist.
Without broadening this debate too much, I trust Deputy Lynch and his party in discussing this section which, as the Taoiseach says, does not deserve much debate since we are not enacting it, will not stake out positions for themselves which they may find it embarrassing to have to proceed on later, whether in Government or in Opposition. It seems to me that there is a very strong case for the provisions of section 3, perhaps not line by line but something like them, for committees of either House or of both Houses jointly.
I accept the validity of the distinction drawn by Deputy Lynch between what section 3 intended and what his Act of 1970 set out to do, the distinction being that the latter was addressed not only to one committee but to one particular matter before that committee. However, I do not think it is something which the Deputy can rely too heavily on because it is as much as to say that the next time the Public Accounts Committee had something important to investigate, the Government of the day would have to come back to the Dáil and have passed another Bill of the same content.
The status and functions of these committees are very unclear and every time a crisis or difficulty arises we all look a little foolish and a lot of time is wasted before we can discover exactly what are our entitlements. And the matter would not necessarily be the type of crisis that arose in the stirring days of 1970 not might it necessarily be something similar to the sort of thing that Deputy Crowley mentioned. There is a great deal to be said for the committees having clearly defined powers, not necessarily word for word with section 3 but something on those lines.
Regarding Deputy Lynch's remark that the committees would be achieving something in the nature of judicial status by reason of section 3, although he made it clear later that this would not be so, he said he thought something approaching that status was being bestowed on them by reason of the subpoena power. I put it to Deputy Lynch that very many offences under our law are constituted by failure to observe non-judicial instructions, instructions coming from various administrative people. There are all kinds of offences which are triable resulting from failure to observe directions or instructions by, for instance, planning authorities, health inspectors, the Garda and so on, and many of which have been in existence for 70 years or more. Therefore, I see nothing radical or revolutionary in failure to observe an injunction represented by a subpoena from a committee of this House as being something which should not be regarded as an offence and which, because the offence is made up of a procedure initiated by a non-judicial act, the whole process should be suspect. I say that with no heat whatever.
I put it to Deputy Lynch that if, in the case of the Minister for Local Government which was under examination last year, one of the people involved— there were people who voluntarily made information available to the committee so anxious were they to assist in the rebuttal of the slurs cast on the Minister—for reasons of his own, be it for instance anxiety not to become involved in the affair, intimidation or pressure put on him by another party, had not come forward where would the committee have been? What would have been the position of the committee or the Tribunal if one of the bank managers or the builders involved had not come forward voluntarily with statements which cleared the Minister completely? The Minister for Local Government would still be politically in hock and the two gentlemen on the far side would still be in the situation of conditional heroes.
I might suggest that res judicata ought not to be discussed here as well as matters sub judice.
I will not pursue the matter beyond summarising that point, that the last occasion on which the Committee on Procedure and Privileges met to discuss an allegation against a Member of the House they were able to reach a conclusion very simply because the information necessary for its conclusion was volunteered. Had it not been volunteered and had a power such as was proposed by the section, which is now to be withdrawn, not been available to the committee I cannot see how that committee could have vindicated the Minister. I do not see how it could have been done.
I support the Taoiseach's suggestion and I hope that Deputy Lynch and his party will meet us half way on this, that we ought to look in a non-contentious atmosphere and not in the setting of a particular row, at the powers of these committees and see what they need. We should not give them any more than they need but give them at least what they need so that the committees, the Houses of the Oireachtas and the public can know their functions and their powers.
I am sorry to be so long on this debate but as long as there are interventions, the content of which I feel obliged to answer, I am afraid the debate will be prolonged. The Parliamentary Secretary failed completely to deal with the point I made about witness having rights of privilege for what they say but not perhaps having to undergo penalties for committing perjury or something akin to perjury. It is a very valid point that if a member of the public comes before that committee under subpoena and commits perjury or at least, as I said, makes charges which he knows to be unfounded or makes statements which he knows to be untrue, then as far as I can see under the section as it stands he is completely immune just as a Member of the House would be. It is wrong to extend that privilege to a member of the public.
I suggest that the very act of issuing a subpoena is a judicial act. A sub-poena is a witness summons. Failure to comply with that summons is an offence for which a penalty is provided which can be enforced only by a court. Therefore, the person, on whom the summons is served is already by virtue of that summons being served, signed by a member of the committee, liable to a court penalty. I do not see what distinction there is between that function and a judicial function exercised by the court.
It is amusing to come back to the Taoiseach's charge against us of trying to have it both ways but the Government certainly had it both ways in the case referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary. He referred to the fact that if certain witnesses did not come forward before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, in respect of the charges made against the Minister for Local Government, the Minister's character could not have been cleared. The fact is that the witnesses came and there is nothing in the Bill as it stands now to prevent any witnesses coming. There is no reason why a witness who wants to tell the truth should not come and be prepared to stand over the truth without the cloak of privilege. As it happened certain witnesses came forward before that committee and the Minister's name was cleared but that did not satisfy the Government. They went as far as a judicial tribunal as well. May I suggest, if matters are that serious the proper place for their investigation is before a judicial tribunal and not before an unqualified committee of this House? These are the points I have to make in reply to Deputy Kelly's intervention.
Section deleted.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 2:
That section 4 be deleted.
I understand from the Leader of the Opposition that there is no objection to this.
There is no objection at all. I was given to understand that as section 3 was being deleted section 4 would necessarily be deleted. I believe it is unnecessary because the Act itself, having performed the function under which it was set up, dies.
It is not needed unless Deputy Lynch wants it. Does he want it left as a reminder?
I do not mind. It will be on the statute book anyway. It does not matter whether or not those two sentences will be in this Bill. As far as I am concerned the Taoiseach can have it any way he likes.
I thought Deputy Lynch wanted it there as a reminder. We will delete it so.
It will remain on the statute book. Nobody will tear the leaves out of the 1970 book of statutes.
Section deleted.
Section 5 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments and passed.