Vol. 425 No. 7
1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the proposals, if any, constitutional or otherwise, he has to make provision for the waiving of Cabinet confidentiality in the specific circumstances where a tribunal, established by the Houses of the Oireachtas, has independently decided that it needs information on specified Cabinet transactions, in order to fully complete the terms of reference given to it.
asked the Taoiseach the Government's policy in regard to Cabinet confidentiality; if he intends to initiate any legislative or constitutional action to ensure that discussions at Cabinet meetings could be disclosed when deemed necessary by a court or a judicial inquiry.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
As I indicated to the House on 9 October 1992, in a detailed response to questions addressed to me on that occasion, I do not intend to take any legislative or constitutional action along the lines suggested in the Deputies' questions.
At the same time, I wish to assure the House that the Government will co-operate with tribunals established by the Houses of the Oireachtas in every way open to them.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that it is unjust that a journalist or other lay witness can be liable to a jail sentence for failure to give sources of information to a tribunal set up by this House while a Cabinet Minister can decline to give information, hiding behind a supposed doctrine of Cabinet confidentiality, and a Deputy can hide behind a claim of Dáil privilege?
The Deputy is not comparing like with like in relation to a Cabinet Minister with collective responsibility sitting at a Cabinet table and journalists reporting their own affairs to the tribunal.
Would the Taoiseach not agree, particularly in light of the commitments in the Government's programme in regard to ethics, openness, greater democracy, participation and so on that it is more openness we want and not more secrecy? We are not looking for the divulging of routine Cabinet business but where a court seeks information in pursuit of some matter or other, the Cabinet in those restricted circumstances should not hide behind confidentiality?
The Deputy should recall that the Supreme Court gave a very clear judgment in this regard that discussions leading to decisions made at the Cabinet table are a matter of strict confidentiality. That remains the position.
Is the Taoiseach aware that it is the stated policy of the Labour Party that constitutional amendments should be introduced to waive Cabinet confidentiality in the case of questions which a tribunal decides require an answer?
The Deputy need have no fears that the Programme for Government, as agreed between the parties, will be carried out.
Will the Taoiseach indicate whether the Labour Party sought to have this element of their policy included in the joint programme?
Discussions between the Labour Party and the Fianna Fáil Party——
Confidential.
——and between the Tánaiste and myself shall remain confidential.
Yet another example of open Government.
At least we produced a document.
The situation becomes more extraordinary. Would the Taoiseach not agree that Article 28.4.1º. of the Constitution obliges the Government to be responsible to the Dáil and that, therefore, there are serious implications in his decision not to amend the Constitution to enable information to be made available to the Dáil where necessary?
The Supreme Court judgment in relation to this issue is very clear.
We know the Supreme Court judgment; what we are asking the Taoiseach to do is to change it.
Would the Deputy please allow me to answer?
This should not give rise to argument.
Our system of Government is based on the theory of separation of powers and the principle of collective responsibility which I have already spoken about. This view was borne out very clearly by the Supreme Court decision on 21 August, 1992 in the case of the Attorney General and the Beef Tribunal. There the matter rests. The Supreme Court made a decision on it and the Government fully accept that.
It does not rest there unless the Taoiseach wants it to rest there.
Would the Taoiseach not accept that time and enormous sums of money are wasted unless those who call for the setting up of tribunals, such as the Beef Tribunal, and those in Government who agree to their being set up, are prepared to co-operate fully with such tribunals and take any steps that are necessary to ensure that the information that is needed by such tribunals is made available to them? Would he further agree that the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste are both hiding behind a court decision to ensure that information is not made available to the tribunal?
There is an element of repetition.
The Deputy is badly informed because the Government supplied all the information requested and more which could have been used after the Supreme Court decision was given in this particular instance. We accept fully the Supreme Court decision in this matter.
I call Deputy McDowell with a final question from Deputy Shatter. Let us not dwell unduly long on any question.
Arising out of the first portion of Deputy De Rossa's question to the Taoiseach, if the Taoiseach believes that the Supreme Court decision in relation to this matter is clear, what is the position in relation to the deposition in the national archives of Cabinet papers? Is there any time limit in relation to Government papers and Cabinet papers going to that body and have the Taoiseach or the Government received any advice in relation to that? Second, is it the case that, unlike other parliaments such as the one in Westminster, Ministers can no longer explain to this House, even in the context of a resignation, what happened at a Cabinet meeting which brought about such resignation? Does the Taoiseach really believe the various judgments in the Supreme Court are clearly understood by the Government? Is he satisfied that this House has been fully appraised of the consequences of the Supreme Court judgment in relation, for instance, to archives, Government papers and——
I asked for brevity but obviously I am not getting it.
That is more a statement than a question. If the Deputy wants to put down questions on specific aspects of it he is free to do so. The majority of the Supreme Court clearly identified Government confidentiality as an intrinsic feature of our system of Government. Anybody who has been around the Cabinet table will agree with that on the basis of practicality. Forget about law for the moment. If the views expressed by any Minister sitting at the Cabinet table were for open discussion afterwards I do not believe it would be practicable to carry on Government as we know it. That is the reality and I am sure all Deputies privately concur with that arrangement.
Not where a tribunal has been set up by this House to establish the facts.
It is a cop out.
I asked the Taoiseach——
We cannot debate this matter now. I will proceed to another question when I hear a brief, relevant and succinct question from Deputy Alan Shatter.
I asked the Taoiseach two succinct questions about the archives and Government papers and he failed to respond.
I am sorry, Deputy, but I called Deputy Shatter. If Deputy Shatter does not respond I will proceed to another question.
Those questions were too complicated.
They went on to the second page.
The one page does not cover it.
In light of the acrimonious attack launched by the Labour Leader, now Tánaiste, on the Taoiseach as a result of his claiming Cabinet confidentiality last spring, could the Taoiseach indicate at what stage the Tánaiste's view on this issue revolved and could he confirm to the House that this was not an issue seriously pressed during the negotiations to form a Government?
No matter how hard they try on the Opposition benches, they will not find out the confidential matters discussed between the Tánaiste and me in the lead up to forming a Government. Had they taken a more positive view themselves, they might not be asking those questions.
