Dick Spring
Question:1 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the result of his meeting with the president of the Law Reform Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Law Reform Commission President.
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:2 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the matters discussed at his recent meeting with the president of the Law Reform Commission; if he intends to introduce any guidelines regarding public comment by a president of the Law Reform Commission on matters of political controversy; if he intends to introduce any guidelines for holders of such office regarding membership of secretive religious organisations; if he intends to amend the Law Reform Commission Act, 1975, to clarify the powers of the Government to end the term of office of a president of the Law Reform Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
At my meeting with the president of the Law Reform Commission on 8 April last I conveyed to him the concern of the Government at the content of statements attributed to him which had received widespread publicity. Mr. Justice O'Hanlon did not dispute the accuracy of the reports of his remarks. He informed me that, as president of the Law Reform Commission, he regarded himself as justified in making the statements and that he was unable to offer me any assurance that he would not do so again in the future if he considered it was necessary. On 9 April the Government considered the situation and in view of what had transpired decided that they had no alternative but to terminate Mr. Justice O'Hanlon's appointment as president of the Commission.
I do not at present consider it necessary to introduce guidelines regarding public comment for holders of the office of president of the Commission; it had not proved necessary to do so in the past and there is nothing to show in the recent experience that any such "guidelines" would have produced a different result.
As regards membership of what the Deputy describes as secretive religious organisations, I do not consider it necessary to introduce guidelines and I do not propose to do so. Different religious beliefs are represented on the Commission and this has been the case since their foundation. I am aware of no grounds for supposing that the quality of the recommendations made by the Commission to the Government has suffered because of that.
I do not intend to introduce legislation to amend the Law Reform Commission Act, 1975, as there is already provision in section 3 (8) of the Act to deal with the issue raised by Deputy De Rossa in the final part of his question.
While the Taoiseach may not consider it necessary to introduce guidelines for the office of the presidency of the Law Reform Commission, may I take it from what he said that it is now clear that the holders of high office such as the presidency of the Law Reform Commission should not make public pronouncements on matters of public policy, particularly controversial issues, and that it is more appropriate to the dignity, standing and independence of such high offices that those who hold them should refrain from interventions in public debates?
As the Deputy will realise, members of the Judiciary are independent by virtue of the Constitution and it would therefore be inappropriate for the Government or, indeed, the House to draw up rules or guidelines on the conduct or execution of their functions. The functions of the Law Reform Commission are stated very clearly in the Act, that they undertake reports as referred to them by the Attorney General at the request of the Taoiseach. Those reports are put before the Government and are either accepted or rejected.
I asked whether the Taoiseach intended to introduce guidelines on the appointment of persons to the Commission having regard to membership of secretive religious organisations——
There are secret political organisations, too.
In view of the fact that the former president of the Law Reform Commission admitted that he was a member of Opus Dei, whose constitution, article 189 — according to media reports, indicates that in order to achieve their objectives they must live in concealment, does the Taoiseach consider that the Government should appoint people from that organisation to positions on bodies dealing with law reform? Will the Taoiseach agree that when the Government are appointing people to bodies such as the Law Reform Commission it is necessary to ensure that those people are not obliged to act other than in accordance with the terms of the body to which they are being appointed? In relation to the Taoiseach's reference to Article 3.8, in which he implied that the Government have the power to dismiss a member of the Commission or the president of the Commission, I should like to point out that Article gives no such power. The terms of appointment are established at the time of appointment under Article 3.8 and matters arising thereafter do not impinge on the Government's power.
The question is overlong.
It is very difficult to determine how many questions were intended. The Government do not regard the provision of guidelines as necessary. In relation to the latter part of the Deputy's question, I regard changes to the legislation as unnecessary because when a future appointment is made conditions can be attached to that appointment.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I call Deputy John Bruton.
May I ask the Taoiseach, if he——
Deputy John Bruton has been called and he must be heard.
I am not questioning that, but is the Taoiseach saying he will attach conditions to the appointment of members of the Commission?
Deputy De Rossa, please desist.
Will the Taoiseach give an assurance that the criteria in relation to political comment by chairpersons of State bodies will be applied uniformly and fairly to all State bodies and that the same criteria will be applied in examining the comments made by the chairman of Bord na Gaeilge as were applied to those made by the former president of the Law Reform Commission?
We are having an extension of the question, which is out of order.
I appreciate your advice on this matter. However, I will ask a simple question which even you, a Cheann Comhairle, who shows such care in these matters, could not regard as an extension. Will the Taoiseach give an assurance that the criteria in regard to political comment applied in this case will be applied uniformly?
The questions must refer to the President of the Law Reform Commission and not to anybody else.
Surely we must be seen to have one law for everybody in a matter of this kind?
What about Proinsias Mac Aonghusa?
Will the Taoiseach agree that if a senior member of the Civil Service or of the Defence Forces had made in writing the kind of statements which were made by the person to whom this question refers it would have been considered a very serious matter, possibly warranting dismissal? In view of the clear separation between the Oireachtas on the one hand and the Judiciary on the other, do the Government intend raising this matter with the Chief Justice to ensure that that division — which has been there since the foundation of the State — remains a clear division and is not breached by someone whose personal religious beliefs impel him to so do?
It is a matter for the Chief Justice and/or the President of the High Court together to draw up particular guidelines in relation to opinions expressed by a member of the Judiciary. The other part of Deputy Quinn's question is hypothetical and I do not propose to respond to it.
Will the Taoiseach accept that all those involved in the Law Reform Commission should be treated equally? Does he regard it as acceptable that a permanent employee of the commission remains in position despite expressing views identical to those expressed by the President of the commission and despite calling for a "no" vote in the referendum of the Maastricht Treaty? Is it the Taoiseach's view that Mr. Justice O'Hanlon's public expression of views was unacceptable? If so, why is it acceptable for Mr. Binchy, who is employed by the commission, to express the same views?
Please, Deputy Shatter, again we are having an extension of this question which involves another person outside the House. Deputy Shatter should have regard to my earlier ruling on this matter.
What confidence can one have in Mr. Binchy's work in the commission?
We must proceed in an orderly way with questions. I am calling Deputy De Rossa.
One person has been sacked for saying one thing and another person is not sacked for saying the same thing.
Will the Taoiseach outline the terms and conditions under which the current members of the commission hold office and if such terms and conditions include a requirement that they are not members of any secretive religious organisations? Will he also indicate whether, in the appointment of a future president of the commission, he intends to publish the terms and conditions of the appointment and if it will include the provision to which I referred?
I have already clearly stated the position in regard to what the Deputy described as "secretive religious organisations". I do not consider it necessary to introduce guidelines and I do not propose to do so.