Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 6 Feb 1979

Vol. 311 No. 3

Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Bill, 1979: Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. G. Collins)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Bill amends the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921.

The 1921 Act provides the statutory framework for the holding of sworn inquiries by means of special tribunals and has been the basis for many important inquiries since the foundation of the State. It is a general enabling statute providing for the establishment of a tribunal for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance whenever it is resolved by both Houses of the Oireachtas that it is expedient to do so. In pursuance of such a resolution, a Minister may by instrument appoint a tribunal and the appointing instrument may provide for the application of the Act to the tribunal so appointed.

As Deputies are aware, the Government have already decided to set up a tribunal to inquire into the tragedy which occurred at Whiddy Island on 8 January last and it is intended that the necessary resolutions will be moved in both Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as this Bill becomes law.

Over the years, certain defects in the 1921 Act have become apparent and it is necessary that they should now be rectified so that the tribunal to be appointed to inquire into the Whiddy Island disaster can function effectively. The main flaw in the 1921 Act was identified by a decision of the Supreme Court in 1971, though the decision did not directly relate to the 1921 Act. It related, in fact, to an Act of 1970 dealing with the proceedings of the Committee of Public Accounts entitled Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann (Privilege and Procedure) Act, 1970 (No. 22 of 1970).

Part of that 1970 Act was declared to be unconstitutional and, as the part in question followed in certain material respects the provisions of part of the 1921 Act, that corresponding part of the latter Act must be assumed to be unconstitutional also. The provision in question is in section 1 (2) of the 1921 Act. It purported to enable the chairman of a tribunal to "certify" to the High Court the offence of any person who did any one of a number of things such as refusing to attend as a witness. The inference to be drawn from the Supreme Court decision is that the law must either allow trial by jury in respect of the offence or else make it a minor offence with penalties restricted accordingly. Section 3 of the Bill will rectify the defect by providing that offences alleged to have been committed will be tried summarily—that is to say, in the District Court—and on conviction the offender will be liable to a fine not exceeding £500 or imprisonment for up to 12 months or both.

The section also specifies the offences in question, some of which are new. Taking those which are being re-enacted first, it will be an offence to refuse, without just cause or excuse, to obey a summons to attend; to refuse to take an oath; to refuse to produce documents legally required by the tribunal or to answer questions to which the tribunal may legally require an answer or act in contempt of the tribunal. In re-enacting these provisions, the Bill uses substantially the same terms as the 1921 Act but the opportunity has been taken, for the sake of completeness, to make it an offence to refuse to make an affirmation—this is additional to the existing offence of refusing to take an oath.

Apart from that, the new offences are those listed in section 3 of the Bill. Subsection 2 (c) makes it an offence to give false evidence to a tribunal. This is necessary because of the uncertainty that exists as to whether the offence of perjury applies to the giving of false evidence to a tribunal. Subsection 2 (d) makes it an offence to obstruct or hinder the tribunal in the performance of its functions. This provision will strengthen the powers of tribunals to deal with any attempts that might be made to interfere with evidence. Subsection 2 (e) makes it an offence for a person to fail, neglect or refuse to comply with an order made by a tribunal. This provision strengthens the powers of tribunals to enforce compliance with their orders.

In connection with section 3 it is my intention to move on Committee Stage an amendment of a drafting nature to subsection (2) (b). This will be circulated as quickly as possible. In view of the possibility of taking all Stages today I thought it would be appropriate to advert to it at this stage.

Doubt has also been expressed in the past as to whether a tribunal appointed under the 1921 Act had general power to make orders corresponding to those which the High Court or a judge of that court could make. The 1921 Act vested in a tribunal the powers of the High Court but only in relation to the specific matters set out in section 1 (1) (a), (b) and (c), of that Act. Section 4 of the Bill will remove any such doubt and a tribunal will be able to make such orders as it considers necessary for the purpose of its functions and will have all the powers, rights and privileges that are vested in the High Court in respect of the making of its orders.

Section 5 provides that statements or admissions made by a person before a tribunal or by a person being examined on commission or abroad—the power to examine on commission or abroad is contained in section 1 (1) (c), of the 1921 Act—will not be admissible against that person in any criminal proceedings other than proceedings for the offence of giving false evidence to a tribunal.

Under the 1921 Act, section 2 (b), tribunals have power to authorise the representation before them by counsel, solicitor or otherwise of any person appearing to them to be interested. It has, however, been a matter of some criticism in the past that tribunals have had no power to award costs either to or against persons appearing before them and the Bill now proposes to empower tribunals to do that. Certain criteria by reference to which this would be done are specified, namely, that the tribunal is of opinion that, having regard to the findings of the tribunal and all other relevant matters, there are sufficient reasons rendering it equitable to do so. An important aspect of this is that costs may be awarded against the Minister for Finance, even if that Minister is not involved, but of course this is, in effect, a provision that the State will be liable to pay.

This is a short Bill making necessary or desirable changes in that law in relation to the operation of tribunals conducting sworn inquiries into matters of public importance. It is a matter of great sadness that the immediate necessity for the measure arises from a very tragic happening and I take this opportunity to extend again my sympathy and that of my colleagues to the relatives and friends of all those who lost their lives. The changes that are being proposed are, however, desirable in themselves and would have had to be undertaken at some stage anyhow.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. O'Keeffe

It is tragic that the urgent necessity for this Bill should arise in the circumstances of the catastrophe which occurred at Whiddy Island on 8 January last. I should like to take this opportunity to place on the record of the House my sympathy and that of my colleagues to all those bereaved in that disaster. It is, fortunately, rare that an event such as the Whiddy Island disaster occurs in the State. I accept that when faced with such an event it is important that we should have the machinery available to enable a proper and efficient inquiry to investigate all aspects of it. The Government have already announced that they intend to move a resolution in both Houses of the Oireachtas to establish a tribunal of inquiry into the disaster. So far we have had no indication as to the composition of the tribunal or as to its terms of reference other than that Mr. Justice Costello will be its chairman and that he will be directed to inquire into the events that occurred at the Whiddy Island terminal on 8 January last.

This Bill is an amendment to the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, an old UK statute passed in the reign of George V. It is a fair comment that we are and have been somewhat lax in this Legislature in our approach to law reform. The process of law reform should be on an on-going basis. This comment will be relevant in the context of some worries I have about the Bill to which I will refer at a later stage. The statute has been found to be defective not, as the Minister said, directly but indirectly because of a corresponding provision in an 1970 Act which was declared to be unconstitutional. This was the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann (Privilege and Procedure) Act, 1970 which was passed in haste. It has been obvious since the Supreme Court decision in June 1971 that amending legislation would be necessary. Yet, it is only now, eight years later, in the aftermath of a catastrophic occurrence, again in haste, that our minds are concentrated on remedying the defect.

The Minister will appreciate that I am not making this point in any political sense in that for half of those eight years my own party were in Government. The Fine Gael Party and I, as spokesman for law reform and human rights, are very concerned that the inquiry into the Whiddy explosion should (1) have the widest possible terms of reference; (2) the fullest possible powers consistent with the due process of law and (3) commence at the earliest possible date. As a constituent Deputy for the area involved, knowing the location and the people, including some of the deceased and their next of kin, my personal commitment to that aim will be appreciated. The people of the locality and the bereaved are in agreement with my views. Arising out of the views indicated to me privately and expressed publicly by public representatives and community leaders in regard to this Bill and to the tribunal, I should like to make a strong plea that this inquiry be held in Bantry.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I suggest that that would be more appropriate to the resolution when it comes before us.

Mr. O'Keeffe

What I am concerned about is that a decision may have been made by that time. I realise that I am possibly straining the terms of the Bill to allow me to make this plea and I believe the Government will listen to it. I am aware that local representatives in the Minister's party have made the same plea. In Dublin, away from the scene of the disaster, there may not be full appreciation of the shock and trauma experienced in the area by the bereaved and the community. A major contribution could be made towards alleviating the grief of the bereaved and the numb shock of the community by holding the inquiry in Bantry. As was highlighted earlier, there are adequate facilities there and there is no reason why it should not be held in Bantry rather than in a strange and remote location.

Justice is for the people and not for the convenience of lawyers. Any suggestion of reluctance on the part of lawyers to travel from Dublin to the country should not be taken into account. The result of holding the inquiry in Bantry would be to allow a community catharsis, a lifting of the heavy cloud of shock, worry and concern which has descended on the area. I leave the plea with the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have allowed the Deputy to make the point, but it is not really relevant to this Bill.

Mr. O'Keeffe

I thank the Chair for the indulgence. I referred to the question of the terms of reference of an inquiry which will be established under this Bill and I would refer to the need for the widest possible terms of reference. I hope the Minister is satisfied that any inquiry set up under the Act will have the widest terms of reference. The terms are not yet known and we are told that they will be announced as soon as this Bill is law. Is the Minister satisfied that this Bill will have sufficient powers to make sure that the Whiddy inquiry is conducted with the widest possible terms of reference?

Many questions arise because of this disaster. It is not appropriate now to go into the problems in regard to where the fire started, the distance of the escape routes, the time factors and so on, but I hope that all these things will be fully investigated by the tribunal. Another factor, although I wonder whether it is possible to deal with it within the scope of the tribunal, relates to the problems of the situation at sea, the laws that need to be made, the protocols that need to be ratified in relation to the terms of ships entering into harbours, the question of substandard tankers and the question of certification and training to seafarers. As the Minister is aware, there have been international moves in these areas in the recent past following the disaster of the Amoco Cadiz off the Brittany coast, the Cristos Bitas, the Andreas Patria and now the Betelgeuse. I am concerned as to whether the broader type problem to which I referred can be covered by a tribunal set up under this Act, hopefully to sit in Bantry. If these broader issues are not covered in such a tribunal they will have to be faced in some other way, possibly ultimately by debate in this House. The point at issue here relates to the powers and functions of the Bantry Harbour Commissioners, how such a commission should operate in the future and how they should contribute towards controlling a disaster such as that which occurred at Whiddy on 8 January last.

I wish to ensure the effectiveness of the inquiry and my worry is that, in our haste to put this Bill through, we may leave some loophole. I have had the Bill for approximately 24 hours and I am concerned that I am not able to make a full constructive contribution, which, in the general terms of parliamentary democracy, is expected from an Opposition spokesman. Unfortunately, the time factor obstructed me from making a detailed analysis which would enable me to comment constructively and possibly make some suggestions to the Minister as to how the Bill might be improved.

I referred earlier to the 1970 Act and here perhaps we should look at the sequence of events. On 1 December 1970 it was resolved by Dáil Éireann——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is a very limited Bill. We cannot conduct the inquiry now.

Mr. O'Keeffe

I merely mention this in the context of the manner in which the Bill is before the House. It was resolved by Dáil Éireann——

Mr. Begley

It is very serious legislation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I agree with that, and that is why I am giving quite a lot of latitude.

Mr. O'Keeffe

I merely mention the history of a similar Bill which was passed in 1970, the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann Privileges and Procedure Act. On 1 December 1970 it was resolved by Dáil Éireann that the Committee of Public Accounts should make a special examination of the expenditure of certain moneys. Two weeks later, on 15 December, the Committee presented and interim report to the House in which they reported that in considering the adoption of procedures to govern their proceedings they had encountered a difficulty of a fundamental nature, that was the extent of the application of the provisions of sections 12 and 13 of Article 15 of the Constitution. Two days later, on 17 December, the new Bill was circulated and all Stages taken, in, to judge by the length of the Official Report, ten minutes. On 24 June 1971 it was found in the Supreme Court in the Hall case that a subsection of the Act violated Article 38 of the Constitution.

It is important that we note the sequence of events. In December in this House concern was expressed about Article 15 of the Constitution and a Bill to deal with the problem was presented to the House and taken very quickly. Six months later it was found to be unconstitutional under Article 38 of the Constitution. It is perhaps relevant to note that in the short debate on the 1970 Act, Deputy O'Donovan raised the point in column 1436 of Volume 250 of the Official Report that in his opinion the method of drafting was defective and in column 1437 said that the Bill was an example of hasty legislation. How prophetic his words turned out to be.

I raise the point of haste, so that the errors of the past will not be repeated. I wish to see the Whiddy tribunal sitting as soon as possible in Bantry with the widest possible powers, but I also wish to ensure that the legislation under which the tribunal will be set up is completely watertight. It is no harm to remember that, while the legislation is passed here in the aftermath of the Whiddy disaster, it is legislation which will deal with other matters which may arise in future which would warrant a tribunal. We are not just legislating for today but for years ahead. Subject to these concerns the Government have the full support of the Fine Gael Party for this legislation. We are all agreed on the need for it. Our real worry is whether the Bill will answer that need in full.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

It is regrettable that this legislation is before the House arising from the Whiddy disaster. I will avail of this opportunity to express my sympathy and the sympathy of my party to the relatives and friends of the victims, both at home and in France.

The Minister has informed us that this legislation is necessary to close loopholes in legislation which was passed in 1921 and in 1970. Let us hope that it will fulfil its purpose so that we will not find ourselves in the middle of the inquiry with counsel on one side or the other making submissions ascertaining that the tribunal's authority is not what it should be. We must take into account that this inquiry will be watched by oil companies from all over the world. I am sure that oil companies, tanker companies and so on will be anxious to ascertain what happened in Whiddy on the morning of 8 January. We owe it, not only to our own people in south-west Cork but to the people of France, to ensure that the inquiry will be as comprehensive as possible and that its terms of reference will be sufficiently wide so as to cover all aspects that might arise.

The Bill indicates that the tribunal will be given power to impose punishments on reluctant and untruthful witnesses. I am sure it is only right that that power should be given. The Bill gives the tribunal power to refer misdemeanours to another court so that appropriate punishment may be meted out. I hope that there will be no need for this measure to be utilised by this tribunal. So far as the Irish people are concerned, I am sure they will freely give a truthful, factual account of what happened, so that there will be no need for the presiding chairman, any counsel or any other member of the tribunal to doubt their statements. We want the truth, and I am satisfied that the Irish people will give the truth. I expressed our sympathy to the French people who lost 42 people. I have no doubt but that any witnesses from France or other places will give balanced statements about what happened. People who were not present or in the vicinity at the time of the disaster will not be able to help such an inquiry.

I have sympathy for the Gulf Oil Corporation. We welcomed them to Bantry because they gave us much needed employment at standards above those obtaining in any other type of employment here. I am aware that the Irish chairman of the corporation and the Gulf executives are most distressed about this unfortunate calamity. I am not endeavouring to attribute any blame to the corporation or to anybody else; that is the task of the tribunal.

Deputy Quinn earlier posed an important question in relation to this inquiry when he asked who was in charge of it to date. I should like to know who is responsible for the preliminary arrangements. Deputy Quinn mentioned that he had correspondence from relatives of the French victims who were anxious to be made aware of the name of the person from whom they could obtain information in relation to the inquiry or whether they should address their comments to a Government Department. Surely it is necessary to have a person in charge of arranging the inquiry. I should like to know who is responsible for compiling the list of witnesses. The Minister should give us all the relevant information in relation to this exceptionally important matter. He should tell us the name of the person responsible for summoning witnesses and whether the list of witnesses will be a comprehensive one. People with the slightest amount of information concerning the disaster should be called to give evidence irrespective of the distance they have to travel.

We all agree that the terms of reference of the inquiry should be wide and the Minister has indicated that he will bring a measure before the House at a later stage establishing the inquiry.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I suggest that such matters are relevant to the resolution that will be brought before the House later.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I have been a Member of the House long enough to realise that once a Government introduce a Bill it is not changed, particularly when that Government is composed of Fianna Fáil Members. Once the legislation is introduced establishing the tribunal we will not be in a position to change it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Unfortunately, the Deputy must keep to the Bill before the House.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

This is an important matter and I am anxious to impress upon the Minister the desirability of making the terms of reference wide enough to enable a comprehensive investigation to be carried out into the disaster.

During Question Time the Minister was asked about the venue for this inquiry. We were told by the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick, that the venue will be announced when the Bill is introduced. In my view the most suitable venue would be Bantry town. If it is held there those local people affected by the disaster will not be greatly inconvenienced. It would be much more difficult for the people in the Bantry area to travel to an outside venue than it would be for the personnel of the tribunal to travel to Bantry.

I strongly urge the Minister to examine this question closely. At Question Time today Deputy Quinn asked the question, and I also want to know, who is in charge of the preliminary arrangements for the inquiry? Who is compiling the list of witnesses? Who will get any reports that may be required? Who will be in charge? Will it be the Department or will an individual be charged with responsibility for the work of the inquiry?

I regret that we have this legislation before us today and hope that the measures contained in it will never have to be enforced. I hope also that we will have a free and comprehensive inquiry, that there will be no need to bulldoze anyone into giving evidence against his will and that we will have complete co-operation from every witness who has anything to say which will help the tribunal to determine the cause of the unfortunate Whiddy disaster which occurred on the morning of 8 January with a loss of 50 lives.

Mr. J. Walsh

I welcome the Government's decision to set up this tribunal to inquire into the tragedy which happened at Whiddy Island. I hope that this inquiry will ensure that such a tragedy will not happen again, not only in Ireland but anywhere in the world. I urge the Minister to have the inquiry set up as quickly as possible and to give the tribunal as wide powers as possible so that the findings of the tribunal will ensure that this type of tragedy could never happen again.

I urge the Minister to ensure that the inquiry will be held where the tragedy occurred, that is in Bantry. I have looked into the possibility of the location and the facilities there and I am satisfied from the representations I have made to the Government that the inquiry will be held in Bantry.

I would also like the Minister to give me an assurance that the findings of the inquiry will be made public and that there will be no question of the inquiry being used for the exclusive use of any one person or group. As I said, I welcome the decision to hold the inquiry and I hope that it will ensure that this kind of tragedy will never occur again. I am certain that the people from Whiddy and Bantry will co-operate fully with the tribunal.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The object of this Bill is to amend the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, and to give any tribunal which will be set up under that Act more teeth to make it more effective and to give it the necessary machinery properly and effectively to carry out an inquiry into any matter submitted to it.

Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Bill particularly seek to strengthen any tribunal set up under the 1921 Act. It is very regrettable that the immediate reason for the introduction of this Bill was the Bantry Bay tragedy. I would like to add my voice to the voices of the other Deputies who have spoken in extending our profound sympathy to the families of the 50 brave men who lost their lives in that disaster. Those men were discharging onerous work and duties which were necessary to the continuation of our economy. They were providing energy to keep the wheels of industry turning and to ensure that during the bad weather we would have domestic warmth. While discharging that responsible and necessary work they gave their lives. I share with other Deputies who say that any tribunal set up should have the power and authority to make an in depth inquiry into this tragedy. It would be improper of me to go into the details of the disaster at this stage but it is common belief that it should never have happened, that it was quite unnecessary.

In order that we may be sure that the tribunal will have the necessary powers and that it will not be held to be unconstitutional, we must have a careful look at this Bill in the light of the Constitution. It is true to say that the judges in this country, particularly in the Supreme Court, are becoming more and more jealous of their rights and the rights of the courts under the Constitution. That is as it should be because in the last resort the only real protection that the ordinary citizen has against the Executive or the Government are the courts. If the power of the courts is eroded in any way it be to the disadvantage of the ordinary simple citizen. That is why I say it is a good thing the Supreme Court is so jealous of the rights of the courts under the Constitution.

Like Deputy O'Keeffe I have had this Bill in my hands for only a short time. He got his copy 24 hours ago but I got mine this morning. The relevant articles of the Constitution appear to be Articles 34 and 38. Strange as it may appear I will deal with Article 38 first because it has relevancy to section 3 of the Bill. That section sets out a list of the things which will be offensive. It will be an offence for a person not to obey a summons to appear before the tribunal; it will be an offence for him not to take an oath and give evidence; to give evidence which he does not believe to be true; by any act or omission to hinder the tribunal; if he fails to comply with the provisions of any order made by the tribunal or does or omits to do any other thing and if such doing or omission would, if the tribunal had been the High Court, have been contempt of that court. The end of the section states that those offences will be punishable on summary conviction and that a person convicted in the summary court thereof may be fined a sum of £500 or sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.

I did not have an opportunity of researching those particular penalties and the jurisdiction of a District Court to impose those penalties in a summary manner. A learned gentleman I contacted was not prepared to give me an off-the-cuff decision, so it would be hard to expect me to do so. Article 38.1. of the Constitution stated:

No person shall be tried on any criminal charge save in due course of law.

Paragraph 2. of that Article states:

Minor offences may be tried by courts of summary jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court upheld that a fine of £500 may be imposed by the District Court but that does not mean that the offence is not a minor offence fit to be tried summarily. It has also been held by the Supreme Court that a sentence of six months imprisonment may be imposed by the District Court on that summary conviction but that does not mean that the offence is not a minor offence fit to be tried summarily.

Has a 12 months sentence been adjudicated on by the Supreme Court? Has the Supreme Court held that a sentence of 12 months imprisonment does not remove the offence from the category of minor offences which may be tried summarily? If the Supreme Court has not had this question before it, there is doubt about it. If the Supreme Court has adjudicated on the 12 months sentence and has held that it does not remove the offence from the category of minor offences, that is an end of it. If the Supreme Court has not so adjudicated, there is real doubt here and, even at the risk of letting a man off, it would be better to substitute six months for the 12 months and be sure about it. I am sure the Minister will be able to clarify my mind in relation to that matter. I know that the Supreme Court is jealous of the right of the citizen to trial by jury unless in minor offences. If the Supreme Court has any doubt that an offence is anything other than a minor offence then the accused person is entitled to trial by jury.

Article 34.1 of the Constitution states:

Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution, and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be administered in public.

We must be careful to ensure that a tribunal which, presumably, will be composed of judicial and non-judicial people, is not asked to administer justice. If it is held that it is administering justice and is doing otherwise than inquiring into an occurrence, then any orders made by such a tribunal will be held invalid under that Article of the Constitution.

Section 4 proposes to give to the tribunal all the rights, powers and privileges which are vested in the High Court or a judge of that court in respect of the making of orders. I did not have time to discuss with others what functions, duties or jurisdiction a tribunal might exercise under that section. It appears to me to be wide enough to enable the tribunal to do things that might amount to the administration of justice. If that is the case that section will be null and void under Article 34 of the Constitution. I would like the Minister's views on that.

I am not a practising lawyer and the last thing I want to do is to object to any right being inserted in this Bill which would enable a tribunal to award costs. It would be unnatural for me to be against such a section. Will the tribunal not be administering justice when it acts under section 6 of the Bill? The section states:

Where a tribunal, or, if the tribunal consists of more than one member, the chairman of the tribunal, is of opinion that, having regard to the findings of the tribunal and all other relevant matters, there are sufficient reasons rendering it equitable to do so, the tribunal or the chairman, as the case may be, may by order direct that the whole or part of the costs of any person appearing before the tribunal by counsel or solicitor, as taxed by a Taxing Master of the High Court, shall be paid to the person by any other person named in the order.

The tribunal, exercising the rights given to it under that section, will be acting in a judicial manner and will certainly be administering justice because it has to weigh up, having regard to the facts established and to the evidence and to its findings, whether it is right and equitable to award costs. We know from heresay only because it is not inserted in the Bill, that this Bill, which we are passing to deal with this tribunal, will deal with all future tribunals that are set up. We know that in this case the chairman is to be a distinguished judge of the High Court. He, as chairman of the tribunal, will be exercising this power. Is he doing that as a judge or as a member of the tribunal? Those are questions that have to be answered. I do not think that the chairman of the tribunal under the 1921 Act must always be a judge and I have no doubt that coming to a decision under section 6 of this Bill will mean that the exercise will be the administration of justice by the person who comes to that decision. I am fully conscious of the fact that the drafters of this Bill were well aware of the point that I am making and they sought to get around that point by not enabling a solicitor to lodge the tribunal's Order with the Sheriff and to tell him to go and collect them. They were very conscious of the point I am making but they sought to get around that by saying that the person who has been awarded the costs can recover the costs in any court of competent jurisdiction. That is the way that they are taking of saying that the tribunal is not administering justice. I doubt very much whether that will hold water because as I see it whether the taxing master has power to tax on a certificate of the tribunal or not, once the tribunal awards costs, the amount will then be due and it will not be open to the defendant or the Minister or anybody else to come into court on the action that will be brought later on for the recovery of those costs to dispute the amount due. That will be due on the decision of the tribunal and this other provision in sub-section 2 of section 1 is merely an attempt by the draftsman and his advisers to get around the point I am making. They will not get around it in this way because it will not be the District Court or the Circuit Court or the High Court that will be adjudicating on whether the amount is due or not. That will already have been certified as being due by the tribunal and it will not have any option other than to rubber stamp the amount due. What would be the defence? There would of course be a constitutional defence that the tribunal had not a constitutional right to award costs under section 6 as it purported to do. That is also a very real question.

I do not propose to take up the time of the House any longer but I seriously recommend that the Minister would not ask for all stages of this Bill today. We are all anxious that the Whiddy Island disaster be inquired into and steps taken as a result of that inquiry to ensure that the like will never happen again but we would not necessarily be expediting the holding and the findings of such an inquiry if we pass legislation here today. That is very likely to end up in the Supreme Court. I would ask the Minister to have a serious look at the points I have made on sections 3, 4 and 6 of this Bill. He has far more machinery and advisers than we could possibly have. I would ask the Minister, having considered these points, to give us the benefit of his opinion.

Mr. Quinn

I would strongly support my colleague, Deputy Fitzpatrick of Fine Gael, in his request that the Committee Stage and subsequent stages of this Bill be taken and finished tomorrow because the longer I am in this House and the more often we are asked to pass legislation very quickly, the more unhappy I get about it.

It was said in this House last week that the Labour Party was fully committed to a prompt holding of this inquiry. An extra 12 hours' delay is not going to endanger that prospect and the House will be given an opportunity to do its job more effectively and properly. In so far as this side of the House is in any way responsible for legislation we will have produced better legislation as a result of that delay and reconsideration. I do not know how the Minister is tied in this regard but I would certainly urge him to sympathetically consider Deputy Fitzpatrick's request.

I am very sorry that Mr. Collins is here taking this legislation and I am very sorry indeed that the Minister of State who is going to be involved in the procedures relating to the tribunal for which this legislation is now before the House does not appear to have sufficient interest to sit in at the Second Stage debate. Perhaps the Minister of State feels that having participated inadequately in Question Time he has given the House enough of his time today.

One cannot—and I wish to conform totally with the rules of the House in this regard—seriously talk about this legislation without in some way referring to the background which has made it the necessity that it is and has given it the urgency that it now has.

Let me preface my remarks by saying that it is unfortunate that politicians, and in particular opposition politicians, are placed in the position of appearing to capitalise or make publicity out of the tragedies and miseries of individuals; that is certainly not my intention or the intention of any of my colleagues in this House. We have a democratic function to perform and it is in pursuit of that function that I would ask the Minister to explain why it is that the Government only subsequently indicated to the public that a public inquiry would be taken under this legislation. My information, orally from one of the Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Tourism and Transport, was that the inquiry would be under the 1894 Merchant Shipping Act.

I would like the Minister to explain why for some initial period of time the Government proceeded along the lines that the machinery of that antiquated piece of legislation, which is as much related to sailing boats as to oil tankers, was adequate to provide the framework for such an inquiry. It was only when myself and others pointed out that there were extreme limitations to this legislation and indeed when the cobwebs were dusted off it in the Department of Tourism and Transport that they realised that it was not adequate. Mr. Collins has more than enough to do besides preparing and presenting to this House enabling legislation for a Government Department, that is, the Department of Tourism and Transport which is probably unique for its incompetence. That may seem harsh and perhaps not necessarily relevant——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not worried about what the Deputy says about any Minister or Department but I am worried that he is getting away from the Bill before the House. I allowed other Deputies, in passing, to mention the venue and so on but this has nothing to do with the venue or the terms of reference of this inquiry. It is really only dealing with the amendment of previous legislation regarding evidence at an inquiry.

Mr. Quinn

That is perfectly true and I do not wish to argue with the Chair but I might add that not only are we dealing with this legislation but we are dealing with it under extremely short terms of notice and we are being asked in effect for all Stages today. Surely those two factors add to the context in which we are debating this measure and one cannot simply discuss this measure without relating it in some form or other, certainly at Second Stage, to the context.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not want to broaden it too much. We have certainly broadened it a good deal.

Mr. Quinn

I do not want to make a meal of it. Indeed I do not think I am ever allowed to make a meal of anything.

I am sorry that it has taken so long for the Government to actually find out that they have to change their footwork, so to speak, and to move on this Act and that they should subsequently change it.

I appreciate that the Minister now in the House is not responsible for anything in that Department, but because the matters involved in this inquiry will be of enormous significance to those directly involved in terms of consequential claims that may arise, and because the inquiry will create a framework whereby the cause of the disaster may have considerable repercussions on the installations at Whiddy and on the engagement of the various companies there, it is essential that the compulsion clauses in the Bill, if I may so describe them, will be looked at with a fine tooth comb. That is why we on these benches are strongly supporting the request that the Committee Stage be postponed until tomorrow. It is to the shame of the Government that so far they have not been able to publish the terms of reference of this inquiry. We should not have to speculate about the possible effects of this legislation, and if the terms of reference had been published some of the fears we have in regard to this legislation would have been allayed and we would not be concerned to the same extent with the effectiveness or otherwise of some of the provisions of the Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure the Deputy is aware that later on there will be a resolution before the House on which these matters can be raised.

Mr. Quinn

I wish to make some points on a purely hypothetical case, without implicating anybody. The penalties to be imposed by this Bill are a fine of £500 and, or, a prison sentence of 12 months—if you take Deputy Fitzpatrick's reservation, the prison sentence would be six months. I should not like to have to incur either of these penalties, but we must look at them in the context of multinational oil companies and of the revelations we have had in the last couple of years about the machinations of these companies. These penalties are chickenfeed in that context. When we talk in terms of the entire disaster and of money sums of enormous amounts in compensation, we must ask if the instrument through which the Minister seeks to compel people to attend the inquiry is sufficient to meet the possible extreme situation that may occur.

I again qualify what I am saying by pointing out that it is hypothetical, but our function on this side of the House is to attempt to make good law, and in the absence of these terms of reference one is left to speculate as to how effective this legislation will be. The Chair has said the terms of reference will come before the House——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is not aware that they will. What the Chair said is that when the resolution establishing the tribunal comes before the House the question of the terms of reference may be discussed. They are not relevant on the Bill.

Mr. Quinn

I appreciate that. I propose to speak for only 15 minutes. I am making relatively short, to-the-point observations and as an Opposition Deputy I do not see how I can do that without referring in some shape or form to the inquiry. I am asking the Minister if he can give us an indication when he is replying of when the terms of reference will be published. Can he also indicate where the inquiry will be held? That could provoke the excuse by some people that they would be unable to attend, that they would be unable to get away to attend an inquiry in a place like Bantry or in some alternative venue which may be considered by the Minister for Tourism and Transport. We are not asking these questions for the fun of it, not because it happens to keep the journalists and civil servants busy. We have been getting serious sustained representations from all over the country from organisations anxious to know what is happening.

How is it that four weeks after this disaster we still do not know what will happen? We still do not know where the inquiry will be, we do not know the terms of reference and until this legislation has been passed we do not know the provisions of the legislation under which the inquiry will be held. If this is the product of a sound executive Government with 84 Dáil seats, I should like to know what a spancelled Coalition Government could do in regard to similar circumstances. We have here total Government inactivity. The House is entitled to know which decisions the Government have made, when we will be told when the inquiry being set up by this legislation will take place. I accept that the Minister for Justice is carrying a bag for another Minister who should have been in a position to tell us a couple of days after the tragedy that the legislation under which the inquiry will be held would not be the Merchant Shipping Act but this Bill.

The Dáil was called back on the Thursday before Christmas. It should have been recalled again some days after the disaster to give us adequate notice. The drafting of this legislation did not stretch the resources of the Minister or his staff, but here we are in the second week after the Dáil resumption debating this legislation. That is not good enough and I should like the Minister to tell us why people in this country have been kept in the dark.

If anybody in this House had relatives in Irish Shipping who happened to have been involved in a disaster, let us say, in France, and if four weeks after the event a person or persons were still missing and the Government in France had not indicated that the body or bodies had not been recovered, and if the responsible French Minister was unable to say where the inquiry would be held, if he was unable to say what the terms of reference were, and so forth, every Deputy in the House would be besieged with representations. Surely this Government feel some responsibility to the unfortunate relatives of the 40 or so French sailors who lost their lives, and surely out of courtesy and humanity to them without further delay they should give the information I have been seeking. Must one conclude that at this stage the Government still do not know what they are doing and that they are "flying by the seat of their pants" in this regard?

Mr. Deasy

I wish to be associated, too, with the expressions of sympathy to the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives in this tragedy. I welcome the legislation and trust that it will have a speedy passage through the House.

I support what Deputy Quinn has said and join with him in asking why the legislation was not introduced sooner so as to enable the tribunal to be set up much earlier. When there are major disasters abroad, especially in Britain, inquiries begin within a matter of days. In the case of the Whiddy disaster time has been allowed to slide. However, I trust that the legislation will prove fruitful and that, if it should contain any defect, it will be put right within the next day or so.

Deputy Fitzpatrick has given us food for thought in indicating three or four likely flaws in the Bill. Only three or four years ago we dealt with a piece of legislation which, if it had not involved snags, would possibly have meant that this disaster would not have occurred. I refer to the legislation setting up the Bantry Bay Harbour Authority but that legislation would not appear to have been effective. I trust that this Bill will not lead to any lengthy court case or to any similar delay.

The Minister referred to the flaws in the 1921 and 1970 Acts. It is disquieting to note that those flaws were discovered as far back as 1971 and that it is only now we are attempting to rectify them. If the sections concerned should have been contested, steps in this regard should have been taken long ago so that the legislation could have been amended at a leisurely pace instead of rushing it through the House now.

Yesterday I visited the Whiddy area. I was struck not only by the grief of the relatives and friends of those who died but also by the hardship being borne by a large section of the community in the area. Other matters have come to light which had led to people there living in fear of losing out greatly as a result of the disaster. I refer to the fishing community in the immediate area.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must keep to the Bill. He must not discuss fishery losses or matters of that kind on this measure. I have allowed Deputies a good deal of latitude but I cannot allow Deputy Deasy to discuss these other matters.

Mr. Deasy

It has been stated that Ireland has not ratified the International Convention of Civil Liability for Oil Pollution. That convention was in 1969. It is feared that as a result of this situation there will not be entitlement to claim compensation when the blame of this disaster is apportioned. I should like the Minister to tell me whether this allegation is correct. If there is any foundation for it, it will be a cause for much public disquiet and concern.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That question does not arise on this Bill. I am sure the Deputy will have ample opportunity of raising it on other occasions.

Mr. Deasy

It is a matter of much concern in the immediate area. I trust that the points raised by Deputy Fitzpatrick will be examined carefully and that, if there is any question of there being flaws in the Bill, these will be dealt with within a matter of days.

Minister for Justice (Mr. G. Collins)

I thank the Members for their general welcome for the Bill. Despite the reservations that were expressed and teased out by Deputy Fitzpatrick in respect of one or two sections, I trust that the House will agree to give me all Stages of the Bill today.

I will deal in detail with the points raised by Deputy Fitzpatrick. The request from Deputy Quinn that the Bill should not conclude today intrigues me because, although I listened extremely carefully to everything said by the Deputy, there was not as much as a hint from him as to any reason for the Bill not being put through all Stages today. Deputy Quinn has been hitting the headlines in certain newspapers since this unfortunate tragedy. He has been making statements that to my mind were not at all accurate, but I would remind him that the Taoiseach visited the location of the disaster within hours of the event. I understand also that the Minister for Labour went there on the same day. After visiting Whiddy and talking with departmental officials, with the Garda and with representatives of Gulf Oil, the Taoiseach announced that there would be a full formal inquiry into the disaster. He did not say, however, under which legislation the inquiry would be held, because obviously that was a matter that required careful examination. In the event it was necessary for the Minister for Tourism and Transport to assign an inspector from his Department to engage in a preliminary investigation. In addition the Minister for Labour, having regard to his statutory responsibilities, arranged for two inspectors from his Department to go to the area to investigate the position. It should be remembered that these people were on the spot within hours of the disaster. It must be remembered, too, that in order to have an effective inquiry it is necessary to collect evidence. Indeed, even the most simple court inquiry requires the procuring of evidence, of statements and so on. Deputy Quinn's approach to the whole issue is totally unrealistic. Any acrimony that was introduced into the debate was done so by Deputy Quinn who, in the course of his contribution, had nothing whatsoever to say on the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Quinn

That is not so.

Mr. G. Collins

If there is fear and concern perhaps Deputy Quinn might examine his own conscience in this area. I deplore his remarks with regard to the presence or absence of Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick during the course of this debate.

With regard to the remarks made by Deputy O'Keeffe at the start of the debate, I am sure he knows that I cannot comment on the terms of reference of the inquiry during the course of discussion on this Bill. The Deputy knows too, that when the Minister for Tourism and Transport brings forward the resolution for discussion in both Houses there will be ample scope for debate on the terms of reference. The concern expressed by Deputies O'Keeffe, Murphy and Walsh, the three west Cork Deputies, with regard to having a full inquiry into the disaster is a concern which I and the Government fully share. The Deputy will also understand that I cannot comment at this stage on the location of the inquiry or say where it will be based. I can assure the Deputy that full consideration will be given to the points raised by Members of the House and also to points raised in direct representations to the Government by people who are genuinely concerned.

During the course of his contribution Deputy Murphy asked who was looking after the preliminary arrangements for the inquiry and who was compiling the list of witnesses. The Deputy probably knows that a preliminary notice has already been published by the Department of Tourism and Transport inviting persons to participate in the inquiry and to get in touch with an official of that Department. I am not sure whether Deputy Murphy said that it seemed to him that the tribunal could punish a witness but, if he should have that impression, it is not correct.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The tribunal can refer a witness to the courts if it feels he is in breach of the conditions laid down by the tribunal.

Mr. G. Collins

That is so. A witness can only be punished under the Bill by the District Court following the normal trial procedure. Deputy Walsh was anxious about the findings of the court. Under section 2 (a) of the 1921 Act, which remains unaffected by the Bill, the tribunal shall not refuse to allow the public to be present unless, in the opinion of the tribunal, it is in the public interest expedient to do so. The Act does not say anything with regard to non-publication of the report.

With regard to the point raised by Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick in relation to the constitutionality of section 4 and the power to impose a 12 months imprisonment sentence in the District Court——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Section 3.

Mr. G. Collins

——this is to be found in many Acts passed over the last 30 years. It has never been challenged in any of the many constitutional cases heard in the last few years. The Attorney General has considered this point specifically in the Bill and he is satisfied with the existing case law. The penalty of 12 months is not outside the constitutional provisions.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): There is no Supreme Court decision on it.

Mr. G. Collins

No. With regard to another point raised by Deputy Fitzpatrick in connection with section 6 of the Bill, dealing with costs, if these were to be regarded as the administration of justice, others are clearly of the type permitted by Article 37 of the Constitution which refer to "the exercise of limited functions and powers of a judicial nature".

I wish to point out to Deputy Fitzpatrick and others who raised the point that the tribunal will be a fact finding body only and there is no question of it exercising judicial powers. It can only make orders in relation to its functions and will not be able to make orders of a nature that would be made by the High Court.

Mr. O'Keeffe

Might I be permitted to ask a question?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should wait until the Minister has finished.

Mr. O'Keeffe

It is in relation to the question of the power to make an order. There is provision which makes it an offence for somebody to neglect or refuse to comply with an order made by the tribunal. It does not state that there is any limitation on the type of order that can be made.

Mr. G. Collins

It can only make orders in relation to its own functions.

Mr. O'Keeffe

That is not clearly stated in the Bill.

Mr. G. Collins

It is. Perhaps the Deputy might have another look at it.

Mr. O'Keeffe

We will toss it around on Committee Stage.

Mr. G. Collins

We will come to that on Committee Stage and tease it out. I think I have covered all the relevant points raised. I should like to make it very clear—and I am sorry he is not here—that Deputy Quinn's approach to this issue today saddened me. He mentioned headline seeking and headline hunting. If he is trying to convey the impression that the Government and Parliament are not concerned about this issue he is doing a grave injustice to Parliament, because nothing could be further from the truth. It has been clear since that unfortunate day on January 8 last that the whole nation, and not just Deputy Quinn and whatever newspaper he was helping along the way, were truly shocked at and deeply concerned about such a tragedy. The Government are very anxious that this tribunal of inquiry should be got under way as soon as possible.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

What is the objection to taking the remaining Stages today?

An Ceann Comhairle

We will come to that.

Question put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take Committee and Final Stages?

Mr. O'Keeffe

Tomorrow.

Mr. G. Collins

I am quite prepared to take them now if the House so desires.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I do not see why they should not be taken now.

Mr. O'Keeffe

It appears to me that the Bill cannot become law until next week at the earliest when the Seanad will sit. In those circumstances, if we have a little time to investigate the points raised, and to try to ensure that the finished product is the best possible one, we will be acting in the best interests of parliamentary democracy and of those people who are concerned about a successful and proper outcome for this tribunal. The suggestion that all Stages of the Bill might be taken tomorrow morning and given to the Minister might be the best. It would give us an opportunity to reflect on the points raised and make the best job of this Bill tomorrow morning.

Mr. G. Collins

I accept Deputy O'Keeffe's suggestion that we should take all Stages of the Bill tomorrow morning.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I cannot see the reason for the delay. Is it being taken tomorrow morning or Thursday morning?

An Ceann Comhairle

Wednesday morning.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. P. Lalor)

There was no Whips' agreement. An assurance was given last week from the other side of the House that, if this Bill was introduced today, it would be given a speedy passage through the House. Like Deputy O'Keeffe, we want to make sure that it is copperfastened. In case Deputy Murphy might be under any misconception about the Government line, the Minister is willing and anxious to take the final Stages this evening but has no objection to leaving them until tomorrow morning.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 7 February 1979.